Loading...
PC 1994 05 04CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 4, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: loe Scott, Diane Harbor, Nancy Mancino, Matt ~ Jeff Fro'makes, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT; Ron Nutting STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aan~nson, Planning Director; Sharm~-~l~,;~~I~ve Hcmpel, Asst. City Engineer, and Todd Coerhardt, Asst. City Manager CONSmER APPROVING A NEW TAX INCRE .,MF.I~~i~~G_ ,i~l~. CT'-: WHICH I,q CONS!,q'I"ENT WITH THF, CITY'S ON THE PRESS AND DATASERV PROPERTY. · Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on _thi, item. .,. :., ~,'7i, ~'~ ?,-?'-. .. '~ ~."- or ~ho ~ h~ right now. Why th~ City of highway and if you could explain kind of the uni~-~]~o~ ~' .H~aF.:~I~.I really is and why we have to make this investmcut · J.,'l :f;a.' .~ ~ .... - ~'~ ~- :~'-:~-¥- .: ~-~ win .or ~ ~n~ do~rs ~-to r~o~s i~~ and provide right turn lanes where ~.w~~~.'.'n~._;i~t u-ails to it unless we would make the overlays with curb and resources, wetlands and lakes. So it's really up to the cities, counties ~o look.at rebuilding' this highway. It's got a history where the St~..~.~g.m Carver Co--~ has shown ~-u~s~ ~n ~r~ ~. _.~~'~.."'": '~':'" '" - ~~."""' :"':'-~' committ~ put together by Carver County, Ci~ Hennepin County to try to work out an anangem~h'?rti~~.l'l~l~'101..~ those are the jurisdictions that are mostly ir. pac~ by it. . 'ass_iq-::.-.. :-.:,~iQ,.'t:-.__,~ Scott: Okay. Any questions or commits ~:~ss~ou,,..,? .. ~ ._, :~:-:':i- :... i-->.;..., I-f~:~.~' -. ~.1 · · " .~ . :, ,~ . ~:-'~'' . -' .. , . .~_.,, that ar~ added to Heonepin County. How'dolg that Wi~3...~ 'Is this in ~r Coun~ or no~' Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Gerhardt It's in Hennepin County. The tax increment district, it is all in Heunepin County and we've got an opinion from the ~y that says we can take Hennepin County dollars and use those on roadways that come along that jurisdiction. We just can't go out and rebuild half a highway so we...that you could rebuild the entire highway. So we get, we reco~niTe through Met Council those emplo~ts figures from the Press and DataServ and Redmond Products and Automated Building Components and I'm going to f~rget some but several other businesses...are reco~i~! in our employment study. $o when we do our survey compared to Met Council, we're fairly close. · Farm~lre~s: Yeah. In the one I looked at, I'm talking about projection. The projections were significantly lower here and the response that I got, and that particular issue with that, that's because we have a significant amount of employment figures in Hennepin County and that's part of this. I was just wondering for when we make an investment, ~r we're using Hennepin County dollars, are we approving something here that's within our scope of view? Obviously we are or we wouldn't be seeing it. Gerhardt: Right. I ~ there's no question that upgrading Sta~ Highway 101 will benefit all those businesses. Through the track traffic. Through employees getting to wozk. To all those facilities. It's going to be safer. Right now TH 101 is a very dangerous highway. It also provides opportunities for installing a trail system that will connect into these.~ Allowing people to bike, walk or other modes of transpartafion w get to these businesses. So there are some real benefits back to these. We used...Hennepin County dollars to rebuild the TH 101 intersection...in Carver County. All those tracks that are served by Redmond Products, the Press, and that, that had the ~i~iculty of making tim U around to that frontage road. And it's sad that we can only go so far. There's no question as Crosstown gets completed to 4 lanes, you're going to have a...4 lane major non-restricted highway into a 2 lane n~inirrlum improvement state highway with only 2 lanes. And the right turn lanes along there are not, so people going to wozk along that highway, if they use Crosstown, and come up onto Town Line, that's going to be completed here fairly soon. You know everybody who may work in Hopkins that works at the Press is going to hop on Crosstown and take TH 101 and then come down to serve those businesses. So they don't have to hit the traffic signals on Highway 5 in Eden Prain'e. So we're real concerned with TH 101 as Town Line, Crosswwn is completed and fnnneis down into Ii :2 lane minimum improvement state highway. So that's our big concern and then of course the ne/ghborhood would also like to see Ii trail rnnning there. And this is our only ~ty, locally funding this study and try to do something. Sco~ Looking at the boundaries of the TIF district, or the proposed TIF district, the question that I've got is as you look out into your crystal ball and see some of the developments that are being proposed. I mean obviously we're going to be talking about an expsn~on of an Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 existing business in that area. Also potentially another smaller businesa What son of development do you see occurring across the street in the DataServ area? And just Intuit. ally, what sort of financial benefit do you see when this TIP district is fully developed, based upon what you know of other TIF districts that we've gone through, what sort of tax benefit do you see on an annual basis for the city of Chanlmasen from that area7 Gerhardt: Right now I think we've estimated to be fully developed about $9/)0,~.00 a year in new taxes. Including the DataServ and the Press expansion- Right now the plans are for two 70,000 square foot office/warehouse type fadlities that sit along the frontage road between Highway 5 and Lake Drive in fxont of DataServ. DataS~ is also corning out and going to build at least a 100,000 square foot office/warehouse R & D facility next to their current plant. Their lease runs out in 2 years in their facility in Eden Prairie. Scorn So you're just going to be moving those Eden Prairie employees into Chanhassem Mancino: So that will be an increase of $900,000.00 you said for taxes7 When it Wouldn't we get that $900,000.00 regardless of if it were TIF or not7 Gerhardt Some people question that it might not occur. It might or it might not occur. The development. Farmakes: The development. Gerhardt: Right. Mancino: Oh, thc whole development might not occur. Oer~c Yeah. The big question is, what's the incentive of the DamServ going on their own property when Chaaka has it. Waconia has it. Shakopee has it and they can almost build in those facilities for less money and incentives are for them to do it. And for us to compete with those other cities, we have no other option but to do it. The other up side of it is, is that it gives us opportunities to do other public ~vements. You can ask for brick or better on your buildings and say you can use that...say you're going to get assismn~ from thc city. Bvcn if you've got Highway 5 treatxn~ta, you're going to see, you want to sec some special treatments as people enter the city. Bc it entry monuments. Special landscaping trcammqts. And then public impwvcments. Right now if Dell Road, the segment of Dell Road south of Lake Drive was to be constructed. We would have to pull general obligation bonds. Myself, as a taxpayer in Chanhassen would have to pay for that road end I would never usc it. Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Mancino: Couldn't we use the ~ taxes that we're getting from that devel~t to do that? Gerhardt: They go into one large pool, general pool Farmakes: ...edge of the city. It's in another county. It's, how does ttmt general pool w~rk7 Where do those tax dollars go? You're saying that it's going to generate $900,000.00. In whose coffers do they go7 Gerhardt: We get, well with the creation. You want to know if the taxes from the district was there or wasn't there? Mancino: Both. Both scenarios. Gerhardt: If the tax increment district is there, we basically capture 50% of those dollars. The other 50% goes to riscal disparity and that is distributed throughout the metro area to those cities that are co~y and indusu'ially poor. Scorn But don't we get around $900,000.00 a year from fiscal disparities because our existing TIF districts are invisible to the calculation? Fortunately. Crerharde We are a beneficiary of fiscal disparity money but in 6 years we will be a major contributor to fiscal disparities. So of that $900,000.00, we will not see those dollars once the district is collapsexL Farwslres: Do you feel that the expansion of this area benefits us in projections with Met Council? Does it benefit our area or does it benefit another area? We still have to Frovide these areas with fire service, police and so on. Does that benefit our community statistically? Gerhardt: Well yeah, that's the problem with statistics. I mean people son them around and play with them however they want to make their numbers to work but statistica~y we count those employees as a pan of city of Chanhassen's emplo~t base but do they break out those figures and say they're part of Chanhassen's Hennepin County portion and then you've got Chanha~sen's Carver County portion. Well we'd like to, it's still part of Chanhassen so we combine the numbers and I think, or I've seen it where Met Council has broken out each of the two. I do not know if they combine both of them together. But they should show the separation of the two bec~se you're going to have to make that ~lection back when they do county statistics on emplo~t. You can't count our portion of Hennepin County emplo~t into Carver County. So I would think that when they show those, I've seen it where Chanhassen, Hennepin County portion, ~ Carver County portion and they Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 show those figures. Mancino: I had another question about education. What happens when we, first of all before that. Do we have any commerciaJAndustrial development in Chanhas~ that bm't in a TIF district? Has all of it come in under TIF dollars pretty much? Gerhardt: We have a small neighborhood retail area up at TH 41 and TH 7 that is not. Gedney Pickle down in, what is looks like it's in Chaska but it's really in Chanhassen, is not. This private pr~ here that's on the nmp, I did not include what is Ver-sa-til. What was Dexter Magnetic. I don't know who's in there now. Lay~ec. Automs_~uxl Building Components. Redmond Products. Those fac'ties were in a tax increment. Are no longer in a tax increment. All that's included in this new district are vacant lands with the exception of the Press and it's original value of the Press building, when they do the tax calculation, will continue to pay into or outside of the district because the base value needs to be established at the time the dislrict is started. So we're not going to cap~ any increment off of the Press. So those tax dollars will come back to the conun~ty. Mancino: Do any of these tax dollars during the TIF district go into our schools at all? On 'a regular, consistent basis or do our schools lose out when these come into the TIF disuicc Cmrhardt: The tax dollars from this district go to Eden Prairie schools because they're in the Eden Prairie School District. We do not any residents within Chanhas~ that go to Eden Prairie School District so there's no resident~ in Hennepin County side. We have one house that's in Hennepin County. Mancino: Okay. My last question has to do with, I think it's on page 7. Number O which is parcels to be acq~ within the TIF district. It is not anticipated that the city will acq~ any pwpa~ within TIF District No. 3-1 except such easements or other interest in properti~ may be necessary to complete the in~ovements of Dell Road, TH 101, TH 5 anticipated by this plan. I know that the Highway 5. corridor study, which is involved very much on Highway 5, is very interesmt in this corner, Deil Road on the north and south side, as a gateway to our city. And design has not been done on either of those ~ of land but it may be that when one is designed, that there may be some easements of land wanting to take into account for our gateway. These are all kind of what ff's and questions that I have fight now. Wouldn't it be appropriate to put in this contract something about the gateway co~t and what's going to ha~? And would there be a right to acquire some easements from both of those parcels? Gerhardt: You, perhaps it would be correct and, however we have not included that in the plan because we do not know how much land we are going to take or if the entry monuments Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 will be compl~axi so until City Council has re~ those and I tink they've got a meeting scheduled to start looking at those, it's tough for me to put a budget in and how rnu~h land to take you know and people that own that ~ see this as you're taking my ~ and why. And thea that puts Council in a p~dicam~nt to try and answer questions. So until we have a plan in place, we'll come back with a motli6cafion and then I'll come back in front of you and modify this plan to say that we are going W acquire land at the intersection of Dell Road and Highway 5. And at that time I'll have a good estimalc of what the budget would be for that. Mancino: Great. Because I wouldn't recommend passing this without that caveat. Without that addendum that that area be designed and come back to you with it in here. C-erSt: Right. And until we have a better idea of you know, are wc going to put a large entry monuments that say Chanhass~ on them? Arc we going to do landsc~g? Arc wc going to do vertical elements? That que~on hasn't been answered yet. So until we have those answers, we need to come back with a m_~iflcation. Right now we felt that it was important to get the district in place instead of waiting for that. However we have highlighted in the plan that the Planning Commission has reviewed the Highway :5 corridor plan and that this plan is recA)~onizlng that as a project that we want to undertake with the increment that we have available. So you already are laying the ground work.., want to do' special treatments along Highway 5 consistent with the Highway/5 conidor plan. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Scott: Yeah just looking here at, so basically the Highway 5, for $660,000.00. It says roadway improvements. Because of the state of Hishway 5 in that area, which is obviously pretty darn new, how do you envision that money to be invested? Gerhardt: Right now, and I have to put the, thc budget is fairly generic. In addition it's a true estimate of what we anticipate based on our zoning ordinance of what we develop here and tax wise. So we laid out what we felt was the best estimate for these public hnpmvements. And that's all they need to be. You know a good estimate. We may end up spending a million dollars in Highway 5 or we may end up spending $300,000.00 on Highway 5 but the key was to get the $2,860,000.00 and dividing out what we felt the priorities were and the ma.qnitude of the projects that would occur. There's no question if you were to take on State Highway 101 that a good 70% of that project would take the money. We felt that the Highway 5 treatments, you know...$680,000.00 and that was about 20%. 10% for the Dell Road improvements, which is just a small segment of roadway. If you look at that roadway now, it's very unsafe over there and the city is at liability in having that roadway in an unsafe alignment. Planning Commission Meeting - M~y 4, 1994 Scott: Any other questions or co~ts? Ledvina: As it relalr, s to the upgr~_ding of TH 101. Is there any cost sharing that Eden Prain'e will provide as part of that co~on? Gerhardt: Yeah. I ~ there's no way $2 million is going to pay for the upgra__ding of TH 101. What we, I kind of mentioned the coalition group that is being created right now Chanhassen and MnDot in trying to coo~linate to restructure this highway. Minnetonka's concerns are along Town Line. As that roadway comes in, it hits that comer of their city. And of course Eden Prairie on the east side and Chanhassen on the west side. We've looked at several options of looicing at how to define this. But the $2 million would be baskally our contribution towards that. Ledvina: And the cost sharing? The cost sharing wo-ld be worked out at a lam- dale? Ledvin~ Who referees? Gerhardt: It would be a joint powers agreemeztt that works out, you know it'd be percenlages of benefit from it and how people should conlribute. Ledvina: Okay. Scott: What happens, now the life of this district is going to be what, 6 years7 Scott: 9 years. And typically we reinvest, what about. Mandno: I thouEht it...2000. Scott: I think you're talking about the existing. The existing increment disu~ts end at the year 2000. This one is going to be going until after the year 2000. Just the typical arrangement, at least from what I understand is that the first 3 years of tax increment typically gets reinvested in the project for assessments, land buy down, etc, etc. $o if we had everybody start building today, we basically have, we forego 3 years worth of this. Mancino: The $900,000.007 Planning Commission Me~ing - May 4, 1994 $co~ Yeah. So I'm just trying to get an idea fix)m a cashflow slandpoint what this will actually generate. I mean I saw the cap.fy figures and I tlfink basically what you did calculation wise is come up with the capacity figures and then say, well that gives us $3.7 million that we can invest. Is it a situation where we. to maximize the amount of money that we can invest in the infrastructure improvements, is this something where we really need to get people suu-ting to develop, as soon as this is approved, we really need to get people to stsrt developing as soon as possible so that we can get past the 3 years and start receiving some actual dollars we can invest? Gerhardt: We get a 2 year...and then we have at our option not collecting from it for 2 years. So where the city would physically start collecting taxes off of this district wouldn't be until the year '97. So really we'd get basically 2 years. If you want to see the full figure develop, you get 2 years to wait out for buildings to come in. But we don't market Chanhassen to try to bring people out there. We have our own program so we don't go out and call businesses and things like that. Walt Roberts, one of our businesses in the indusu/ai pa~k's here tonight. Walt called me and I sat down with Walt and I explained our program to him. He said, it sounds good to me. I lille Chanhassen. It sounds like a good program. There are probably other bet~ deals out there but you know, I like the location and I think we're just finishing up with Walt's program this year. I think it's businesses ~ Wait's that make this a good program and one to really help the businesses because they're making a transition. I don't know how much new equipment Walt had to buy when he moved into that but it's difficult for these businesses to come out here and to take on the amount of assessments for these streets that are built and to get started and to tak~ on this risk so, all this program is is one to help the businesses pull them.~elves up by their bootstraps, if I can quote the City Manager. It's not...rnarket businesses to come here. People want to be in Chanhass~n ~ there'S usually a reason. You know that they're woridng with other people in thc area. This is their market area. It's close to their home. It's close to their cmplo~t base and good highways. Things like that are typically how businesses decide how they want to be h~re. Market dictates. State of the economy...I don't think we've processed that many indusuial, co~ buildings in the last 2 years. I'm expecting the next 2 to 3 years you're going to see quite a few. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commiksion deem the program for Development District No. 3 and the plan for Tax Increment Financing DisUict No. 3-1 be consistent with the plans for development for the city of Chanhassen. I would fin'ther move that the commission approve Resolution No. 94-2 and direct staff to hold a public hearing on May 23, 1994 on the program and plan as required by State Statutes. Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the staff ~.,ommendation on the TIF district Is there any discussion? Mancino: I'd like to add a friendly amendn~nt and that is that, that there be, in the TIN contract, something having to do with the Highway 5 gat~-way and that there may be an easement on the two properties, nar~h and south, on Dell Road. And we'll leave that up to the city staff and to figure out and to come back to us. Once it's designed. Gerhardt: I can design in there. Maybe just highlighting that one section where we're not anticipating any acquisition. We can look at, there are the possibility of selling the ~y access easements or land for the gm~-way umunents to be acquired...but just highlighted in the plan. Is that what you want to see? Mancino: Yeah. To have it in the plan so we can be proactive and so that any development tl~'s going to come in will know about it before hand and won't be surinised and that we thousht it through. Harbens: Nancy when you discuss that point, are you looking at just the north side of the mad or are you looking at both the north and the south side of the road? Mancino: North and south. Okay. Mancino: So it's a whole gateway entry. Thank you. Gerhardt: I would highlight in there the acquisition be consistent with the Highway 5 corridor plan. Scot~ With regard to gateway. Mancino: Yeah but it's not specific in the con/dor study yet. It hasn't been designed yet see SO. Gerhardt: Then I'd really like to keep it out until we have a little more specifics on it. It's not that it's not going W happen. I'm still going to have m come back with a modification... Ledvina: So that would be an amendment? Phnning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Gerhardt: ...an ~t, you've got to have a budget figure with it. And so it's not a problerm..amendm~t. Scott: So we're going to see this agsin as an an~ndment to the comprehe~ve plan? Or are you talking about an amendment7 Ledvina: To the amendment. Scott; Okay. Speaking of which, of the am~ndm~ts of the ~y sort, do you accept? Led~: Well it would be a recommendation then not to have that in there? Gerhardt: I don't think so at this point. By the time you get to the point where we're going to do the Highway 5 treatments and we have a specific plan and a budget for it, I would include it in at that time. Mancino: But what if those, let's say the north side is already, a development comes in on the north side and they don't know that they may need to give some easement of land up because of, do we want to fie it into the TIF contract and it doesn't happen for 2 months? Gerhardt: Well it's typically done with the sil~ plan approval process and the Highway 5 and the Comp Plan and planners that say that you know, b~ed on the Highway 5 plan you know. Mancino: I'm concerned with timing. Scott: Well especially too ff they're going to be looking for TIP assistance. We want to make sure that they, I wean do~s having that amendment specifically allowing for land acq~tion that's consistent with the Highway 5 standard, does that preclude this from moving forward? I ~ is this sormthin§ that's going to get in the way~ Harberts: To look at it, yeah. Mancino: Then I would still ~ to add, in general trrms, that there may be land acqn_i~tion of those two areas~ Ledvina: Okay. I would accept that ~nt, yes. Scott: Excuse me, is thc~e any other discussion? Okay. Well it's been moved and seconded that we take staff's reco~tion on the TIF district as well as the ~t regarding land acq~ifion consistent with Highway 5 corridor study. 10 Phtnning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1~ Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Plam~ing Commission finds the program for Development District No. 3 and the plan for Tax Increment Financing District N~ 3- 1 mmis~nt with the plans for deveiopmmt for the city of Chanhamen, with the amendment regarding land acquisition cou~iste~ with the Highway 5 corridor study. The Planning Commi~t_ on also approves Re.lotion ~1-2 and directs staff to hold a public hearing on the program and plan on May 23, 1994. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: ARNOLD AND ANN WEIMI~i~KIRCH FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ~.95 ACRF. S INTO 9 $INGLF~ FAMH.Y LOTS WiTH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED I~F, CQNDmQNAL USE PERMIT l~R A RECREATIONAL BEA~itLOT; WETI~AND ~I~TI~I/A~ON PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCI~ON AND MITIGATION OF A WETI~AND~ AND VA(~ATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY L0~ATED ON MINNEWASHTA AVENI~. THE PROPERTY I~ LOCATED SOUTH QF SANDPIPI~I/LANE AND WEST OF PIPER RIDGE LANE~ NEUMANN SUBDIVISION. Public Present~ Name Address Herb Pfeifer Harry D. Peters Ann and Arnold Weimerskirch Olive Neumann An Johnsen Ken Adolf Laurie Johnson Delores Erickson Mike & Sue Faulk Chuc~ Rosenberger 2850 Tanager Lane 18800 Ridgewood Road 2831 Sandpiper Trail 2841 Sandpiper Trail 18~]0 l~innetonka Blvd, M|nnetonka Schoell and Madson, Inc. 2731 Piper Ridge Lane 2762 Piper Ridge Lane 2791 Piper Ridge Lane 2772 Piper Ridge Lane Kate Aan~ and Dave Hempel presented the staff FepoFt on thLq item. Harberts: Kate, under the recommendation you outline the issues to be addressed. Has there been a chance to talk with the applicant about those? Aanenson: Yes, and I'm sure they'll speak to some of those too but we are ~ding 11 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, tabling because we feel like the relocation of the pond and if we look at the wetland and where they're mitigating, it may change the cont~guration of those lots and we thought that was a big enough scope that we want another chance to thoroughly review it before you and g~t your... Harberts: On one of the items with regard to the redesi~ing of the lots, because of the variances requested, do you anticipate that you'll be able w bring them inW compliance? Aanenson: Well I think we can eliminalr a lot of those. Certainly you know like if it saves trees or we can save natural features, that that's certainly a reason to give a variance..~y~ not all 9 lots are going to work. Maybe only 8 will fit on there and that's the things we'll look at. Again as stated, that we...alteration to that ponding...so maybe they can get 9 but maybe 8 works best. Harberts: Well I'm just looking at some of the variances that were req~ You know a 17 foot setback. A zero. I guess you know, depen_ ding on what the action of the commission is tonight, is Ixying to, I guess we're looking at what do we gain by considering the variances and what's the benchmark here, especially at 0 and 17. Aanenson: We're not asking. What we're saying at this point is that we're recommending that it be tabled and they go back and try to work out the lot design and maybe we can eliminate a lot of those variances. That's our position too. Obviously there's been a very good effort to try to save the natural features and we do commend the applicant for doing that but we think they could, with a little bit of ~, make it even bettrr. That's what we're asking for, for the reason for tabling it. Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff? Mandno: I just have another question for Kate. On page 7, under Water Resources. And I'm thinking about Block 2. The houses on the south side is a wetland and then it goes into Lake Minnewashta. It has under water resources that there can be lirnit~! clearing of Uee~ and shrubs and cutting and pruning. Tell me, on Block 2, those houses. Can they go in in their back yards and put a walkway down ~o the lake through the wetland? Aanenson: No, that was our understanding in the doing the common beachlot so they wouldn't have to do that. That goes back to the monumentation we just approved. Putting monumentafion on this buffer at the buffer setback the nammL..maintain the inlegrity. And that's another mason looking at the variances. They may be warranted. This is a wugh site. 12 Planning Commi~on Meeting - May 4, 199~ We've got a natural wetland surronntling the entire sil~ plus another wetl.ntt on the comer. But again you have to balance those. Is 8 the right number? Is 9 the right number and then work with fitting in the topography so. Mancino: It's a beau~ site. lust a wonderfuL Scott: Good. Dave, do you have any comments? Any additional? Hempel: No, I pretty well oovered it. Sco~ Okay, good. We'd like to hear from the applicant or their representatives. Please identify yourseff and speak into the microphone. Arnold Weimerskirch: My name is Arnold Weime~timh. I'm Mrs. Neumann's son-in-law. Mrs. Neumann is here tonight. With her, my wife Ann next to her. Mrs. Neumann is the owner of the property. She has owned that ~ for 60 years and lived there all that time. My wife and I have lived there for 30 years. And so we've seen Omnhassen go from a very nual community to as the city gradually closes in around us. And about a year ago we decided it was time to develop. But we wanted to make sure that it was devel~ right because both Mrs. Neumann and my wife and I plan to continue to live there so we want to make sure it's developed properly. So we went to an old family fifiend, Art $ohnson who is a realtor. He is our representative and he works with his associate Harry Pelm~. They are...~ we went to Schoell and Madson engineering firm and Ken Adolf is here tonight to ~t our plan in a little bit more detail so I'll mm it over to Ken. Ken Adolf: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Again I'm Ken Adolf with Schoell and Madson, engineering... The design of the subdivision was really intended to minimize thc amount of grading and...that's goin§ to be neces~ so in general what the plan shows is grading in the 8treet~ grs_dlng in the llecesgary storm wat~ basin ~ some alteralion of wetland that was occurring to the grades as shown~ I'd like to just cover some of the issues. As far as the tree survey. All of the frees were not located. They're in general the area behind the two existing homes and the lot inbetween those two holnes, which is not planned to be built on in the near future. There are no co~on planned in that area, removing those trees. And again we're down to the 6 inch size being requeal~. We will supplement the previous tree survey with that additional information. There's been considerable discussion today about the location of the pond. I've discussed that with Dave Hempel and with the owners and they have agreed to a pond location in the area that Dave had outlined on the plan so I think that will work out okay. The owners really want to retain 9 lots. We'll have to see what can be done with that to retain the 9 lots and still meet the goals that the staff has set forth in their report. One of the _things I wallt to probably let you know that 13 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 it is eliminated, there will be some wetland alteration just for the street construction. That's where the big, the setback variances is occun'ing is on the Neumanu ~ce where the street has to be snaked inbetween the residence and the existing wetland. That's the reason that the fight-of-way with the ~0 feet is being proposed and a significant variance of the front setback. By doing it that way, I think as you can see, the thru street or the proposed street lines up pretty closely with Tanagers Lane to the north. Providing a 30 foot setback up from the Neumatm house and a 60 foot right-of-way would have significantly pushed that proposed street into that wetland area. So there will be some mitigation required. The owners would ~ to retain the existing vegetafiom That provides a nice screening on tho SOllth side of Sandpiper Lane and we're probably looldng at doing any necessary mitigation along the lakcshore probably fight adjacent to where the storm water pond is proposed., as long as there will be some conslxuction activity down in that area anyway. I think that for the most part that covers the main...I'd be happy to address any questi~. Sc. om Are there any questions for the applicant? Hal'bens: I have a question maybe for Dave or for the applicant. With regards to that Tanagers Lane and with the new road. Does it line up dead center then or it kind of like slightly off7 What I'm seeing, it looks like it's slightly off. Ken Adolf: It is slightly farther east but it's not that significant. I think it comes 10 feet from lining up...to the center line. Hempel: The actual roadway itself I think could probably be adjusted within that 50 foot right-of-way to be more of a center... Arnold Weimcrski~h: Could I comment on that7 The map I look at arc somewhat inaccmate in that regard. The map show a rather sharp right angle turn between Sandpiper and Tanagers. In reality that isn't a fight angle turn at all It's a large curve and there's no way of telling where Sandpiper ends and where Tanagers be~n.s. I'm not sure how significant that is but I don't think anybody would look at our driveway as an exten~on of Sandpiper, or as an extension of Tanager Lane. Then as a mR__ncr_ of fact I would recommend that to me it's more logical to call it an extension of Sandpiper than it is of Tanager. We get quite a number of confused visitors wondering where Tanager is and where Sandpiper is. So to me it would be more likely to call that Sandpiper rather than Tanager. Scott: Any other questions or comments for the app~t? 14 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Arnold Weimc~idrch: I do have one other point I would like to bring up. When the sewer lines were put in we, the property was ~ along Sandpiper Lane or Sandpiper Th& And what is now Lot 27 was assessed 2 units on the premise that there would be 2 houses built fronting onto Sandpiper Trail. That's all wet then. This is 20 years ago when...Those lots of course are not buil~le now so it does seem fair to me that those assessments be eliminated now since it is not buildable property. Sc, om Can you respond to that? Hernpel: We can certainly check with the city's s~.~sment clerk and see what, if any, assessments have been paid on that parcel and if that area is deemed unbuildable due to that wetland and so forth, the applicant probalaly does have a credit corning back ns the paine1, so we will take that under advisenmnt and update you. Arnold Wehner~k4rch: The assessments haven't been paid. They were dofezred based on being a sen~or cit~n so they haven't been paid but they have them. Scoa: Okay. Anything else? Okay. Thi~ is a public hearing. Could I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Mnncino moved, Hnrberts seconded to open the public henrin~ AH voted in favor nnd the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: If anyone would like to speak about this issue, please step forward and identify yourselves and we'll go from there. So would anyone like to speak. Is there anyone here for this particular issue? Herb Pfeifer: My name is Herb Pfeifer. I live on the corner of Sandpiper and Tanager and I'm. Ha_.-ber~: Which side? Herb Pfeifer: It would be on the west side of Tanager_the curve on the lower left hand comer. And I really haven't seen any of the information about the abandomnent of the right- of-way of Minnewashta Avenue and since it hnpacts me, as I am the pmpo'ty owner adjacent to that, I'd like some explanation. Scou: As far as the. Herb Pfeifer: As far as if the roadway is abandoned, what happens to my ~ that's 15 Planning Commission Meeting - May ~ 199d adjacent to the fight-of-way? Scott: So you're locate~ run that by us again. I see Sandpiper Lane, Tanager Lane and I see just south of, okay. That's what I was thin.rig. Herb Pfeifer: Right here. If you're going to eliminate Ivfinnewashla Lane...exacfly what's all abandoned? Is it from this point timber? All the way down or what? Scott: Dave, why don't you speak to that. Hempel: At this point we'd be looking at vacating the, probably the portion west, hying west of Tanagers Lane and reserving a drainage utility easement down to thc lake where the city has utility lines down to. Herb Pfeifer: You mean right here? Starting at this point? Abandoning it. Hempel: That's correct. As long as there's no other homes being serviced by that ~ Herb Pfeifer: Well, then we've got a conflict because we've got a beachlot down lmre that's. Aanenson: It'd start past the beachlot. Herb Pfeifer: What's that? Herb Pfeifer: Oh past. It won't be vacated here then? Aanenson: No. We've already approved that. The City Council approved a non-conforming pemfit for that bcachlot. Herb Pfeifer: Thai'slight. Aancnson: Right. So we'd start past the beachlot. Herb Pfeifer: So will where it be vacated? At what point? Aan~: Once it starts to take the bend to hear east. Herb Pfeifer: Over here? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Aanenson: Yes. Herb Pfeff~: Along the lakeshore? Aanenson: Right. Through their property, yes. Herb Pfeifer: Okay. Then are these going to, you know you don't show that roadway coming down here and I really don't understand it. We're going to have addifion~ these are lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 and so on. Are we going to be building houses down in this area? Scott: No. Herb Pfeifer: No. Okay, so the purpose of the abandonment here is for what? Herr~l: To eliminate the unnecessary right-of-way that's essentially in the wetland. It serves no function. Scott: It's more an administrative. Harbens: It doesn't serve a public function in other words? Hernpel: No it does not. Aanenson: It's a paper street. Arnold Weimerskirch: It's under water. Herb Pfeifer: It is. It is under water. Harberts: So is the Bloomington Ferry Bridge. Herb Pfeifer: Yeah a portion, well you don't really. I can't really tell imm this map exactly where the lake is or the mad is down there but I'm assuming you're going to say it's going to be abandoned right at the water th~. Harb~'ts: Kate, and I'm guessing that ff the commission ~ to table this, that this would be an opporttmity to maybe review this in detail so the residents do understand what's being abandoned. I don't know, it might be easier to show it on other maps ~ than U'ansparencies that have picun'es. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Ken Adolf: The fight-of-way proposed to be abandoned is directly behind the Neumann house that's in the section right here. It's really south of where Sandpiper Lane is. Harberts: How far does it go? Ken Adolf: Well most of the street has already been vacated. It's just a small area right in here. It's this area fight here. Herb Pfeifer: Just that section there. But how far down does it go? Ken Adolf: Well it used to go all the way around. Arnold Weimerskirch: It goes all the way around. Ken Adolf: So that's ~y been vacated. Arnold Weimerskirch: The land has been platted in the 1800's. Presumably at a time when_and that plat is there. It is under water. I don't think that's an issue here. We smv, ly don't intend to build...so it would just be vacated. I would firestone the city would want to do that because it's a nuisance for it to be on the map when it doesn't exist in reality. The 1Vlinnewashta Manor Homeowners do own a lot in the lake. Scott: Sure. I remember s~-ing tl~t. Arnold Weimerskirch: But they do nevertheless have a ri~t-of-way to that so we have no intention of prese~ing that. It'd be just to erase the fictious road right-of-way that doesn't exist anyway. Herb Pfeifer: Okay so then that fight-of-way will go to your ~, be on your ~... Arnold Weimerskiwh: Well I presume it will but it's wetland. Scott: Would anybody else ~ to speak at this particular public hearing on this issue? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to dose the public hearing. AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Ledvina: Kate, would a wetland alteration permit be required for the consmsction of the dock. Do we know that? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Aanenson: Yes. Ledvina: It would be required? Aanenson: Well, we've done it on other ones just to make sm~ Really all we've done in the past is to say that they...a boardwalk and that's why we're asking more specifics. How it's going m be constmcl~ and looking at that but we've done it on the other ones. We did require a wetland alteration permit and as a technicality we did in~ure that it's built, a permitting process on other lots that do have wetlands when I think you're i .mlmcting it. I think that's, there will be minimum lo88 but we want to see the type... Ledvina: How would you mitigate that type of scenario? I mean for constructing a dock. Aanenson: What we'd look at is any removal and basically that's why you go over the wp. It's just the posts going in... Ledvina: Yeah but I mean if you're res~g the vegetation from coming up, is that altering the wetland? Maybe you're not filling in it but I don't know. Mancino: You've got to put the posts in and there's.a lot of wozk to be done in that area. Ledvina: Right. How do you get in there? Develop wrecking stuff as you're trying to put the thing in. Okay, so that's a specific thing that we'll know about when we have details on the construction of the dock. Ledvina: Okay. Now as it relates to the area that's calculated for thc reclv~onal beachlot. Now we're not using any of thc area that's wetland, is that correct7 Aanenson: No. It'd be upland... Aanenson: But let me make something else clear on ItmL The ~ce, the beacblot ordinance indicates a grade on that as far as, it doesn't say it has to be upland and staff's Ledvina: I would support that as welL And there's a formula as it relates to the number of docks and the number of boats. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Aanenson: It's on square footage. Ledvina: Square footage, okay. And that's what's been determined 9 boats with the potential of 3 docks. Okay. Well, I would support the consmlcfion of one dock wi~h the 9 slips. I think that's the less inmmive technique far proviaing that m'rm~ty to the beacMot I certainly want to make sure that we have a good handle on what's going to happen to the wetland as it relates to thc consUucfion of that dock and that we take the measure~ that we need to pmte~ that area and also mitigate, if that's deemed aplm;~pfiat~ so. I think that I would support the development and I would agree that the developer's done a good job of trying to be as sensitive as they can to the wetland near Sandpiper Lane and if staff deam it ~pmpfiate that the setback on the cxisting Weirner~h house is, if we need to ~rni~e that, I would support that. I guess I would like to see it back again so I would support staff's recotmnendafion to table. Scott: Okay. Nancy? Mancino: I would like to ask Mr. Chair if we could ask the applicant how they feel about the one dock with 9 boat slips on it as in the staff report What their opinion is, etc. In~tead of having 3 docks. Having one dock with 9 boat slips on it. Scott: It looks like it's drawn in. Arnold We/merakirch: We're fine with that. That was our.proposaL Mancino: Oh, that was your proposal? Scott: Well it's on the plans that way. Arnold Weimerski~h: Correct. That's what we proposed in our originaL Mancino: Okay. My mistake. Thank you. I have nothing new to add. I support Cs recommendation for tabling it and bringing it back with the revisions and the recommendations that they've made. I would like to just add to it that we do pedorm a tree canopy coverage analysis of the existing tree inventory. And that we be Sul~lied with a tree replacement plan and use our pe~_dlng new tree ~ation ardillance to follow thaL And that's it, thank yom Sc, om Good, left. Phnning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Fanmkes: I support staff recommendations on this. I would clarify 5...stated the seasonal dock. I believe the DNR, if you leave the posts in the wa~r, the support posts in the water, it's no longer considered seasonal. You may want to clarify exactly what kind of dock we're dealing with there. With this dock specification on 5. Scott: Okay. Diane. Harberts: I would support staff's recommendation to table it. I appreciate what the applicant has done with regard to the trees. The natural amenities here as well as with the dock. I'm sorry I had to step out but I hope that that road issue was resolved or at least the information can be brought forward to the gentleman that lives on thc comer there. I would really support trying to eliminate as many variances as possible on the redesign of the subdivision. I don't know, I'm just real uneasy about some of, well at least with some of the variances . that are stated right now that exist right now so I would just enco~e to elimina~ as many, if not all of them. But we'll certainly leave that to staff and the a~llcant to work out. But I appreciate the responsiveness from the applicant. Scott: Good. Ladd. Conrad: I think the applicant gave us a good proposal I think staff did a good job of analysis. I'm real impressed and I think our c~tinance played real nicely with a sensitive area like this so it's all peaches and cream. I think the staff report is good. I think we should table it for the modit~cations. Harberts: Just one other thing Mr. Chair. I would just'like to draw _en~,~ to the road system lining up. Tanager Lane and whatever this new road will be called. I know the discussion by the applicant with regard to the curve. Dave, you made the comment that maybe we work within the right-of-way. I think it's very irr?ortant long term, in terms of circulation, in terms of traffic patterns, that we get it lined up the first time so. Scott: Okay. I support the staff reco~tion. Can I have a motion please? Maucino: I will reco~ that we table the applicant's request so that the plat can be revised to address the following issues. One, relocation of the sWrm water pond. Two, a elimination of the variance requests through redesign of the lots. Wetland avoidance can also be achieved through lot redesign. Four, a 60 foot radius needs to be provided at the end of the cul-de-sac. And five, a skeWh plan needs to be provided for the beachlot, inclndlng trail and dock specifications. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - May z~, 1994 Harberts: I'd like to also add Nancy, ff it's okay with regard to the ]inlng up of the Tanager Lane and the new road. I know Jeff had brought up the discussion point about clm/fying the Mancino: I think that would be under 5. Farmakes: I think that can be under specifications. It is listed as a seasonal dock. Harberts: Okay. Was there s~ing Matt that you touched on? Ledvina: No. Scott: Do you accept that amendment? Mancino: Yes. I accept number 6 as lining up the Tanager and the new street. Ctfl-de-sac. Scot~ Okay. Is there a second please? Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the su~s recommendation with the additional conditions. Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Ptsnning CommL_~flon table the application for the Neumann Subdivision ~i-3 8o the plat can be revised to address the ~ issues: 1. Relocation of the storm water pond. e A more detailed tree survey and in compliance with the new tree preservation ordinance. 3. Elimination of the variance requests through redesign of the lots. Wetland avoidance can also be achkwed through lot redesigm 4. A 60 foot radius needs to be provided at the end of the cul-de-~. 5. A sketch plan needs to be provided for the beachlot, including trail and dock specifications. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - May ~, 199~ 6. That the applicant try to line of Tanager Lane with the new eul-de.sae. All voted in favor and the motion carried unani~y. PUBLIC HEARING: LUTHERAN CHURCH OF LIVING CI~T FOR A SITE PLAN llg.~ FOR A 7~60 SOUARE FOOT ADDITION TO TNF. L~_R_AN CHUR~t OF ~ LVv'INQ (~tRIST ON PROPERTY ZONED OI~ OFFICE INDUSTIHAI. AND LOCATED ON LOT 2~ BLOCK Iv CHANHASSEN LAKI~ BUSINESS PARK: ~ LAKIi'~ DRIVF.; Public PFesent: Namg Addre~_~ Don Wagner Jim Dewaltcr Nancy J. Manzey Architrcts Professional Association Lutheran Church of the Living Ciu~ 17229 Round La~ Road, Eden Prairie Kate Aanenson presented the staff report (m this item. Harbcrts: Question. Thc front of the building where the steps go up, is that the part that goes into like the narthex into the church part7 Do you know7 Aancnson: I'll let the architect. I bclicvc that's thc... Harbem: Into the church7 I guess my real question here is, does that meet ADA? I tnean if someone was in a wheelchair, how do you get them up the steps? Don Wagner:. Okay, I'd like to answer that My name is Don Wagner. F m the registrred architect and I'm representing Architects Professional Association. We're an archit~amd addition to this facility. Your question regarding the ADA. What we are providing are, ~ing tO ADA rules, we're providing 5 new stalls. Some of them are 5 foot wide. ~ spaces on each side. One with an 8 foot wide stall for a van. Two of those spaces are located right down there on each side of the drive. Ittey are intrnded to serve the lower level. That area's about 4 feet 4 inche~ higher than the lower level so consequently you would need about 90 feet of a horizontal run to drop to that 4 feet. We have 110 of bituminous surfacing that would go from that area to the new entry that we're provi_'ding with Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 that. We are providing 3 more stalls in this are~ Right up in there. The...that is virtually dead level with a portion of the existing entrance that we are keeping. That would provide the accessibility to the upper level Now right next to that is an elevator. Harberts: Right next W what? Don Wagner: Right next w that existing enlrance that we'll be saving...access to those levels at that point. $o if you want to, you can even provide all 5 spaces in...and all could be used in that particular entrance. We thought we'd divide it up. Haflxrts: Well and I think, certainly with the ADA they certainly outline the minimum requirements that should be met and I just find it of interest with the church. With the population or a congregation that may include ages, all ages, that they're for my point of view, that there isn't a little better access to the church itself directly rather than more of the indirect way. ' Don Wagner: That was our in~'nt at the be~nning until we got the survey to ~nd out how the contours ran, and that's right. So we're very concerned about maintaining a minimal slope for a drive in front of the church. Otherwise we're going to have a bunch of fender benders and cars will be s~iding into each other. So it seemed only appropriate that we preserve a portion of the original entrance and that it will be used in perhaps in some December Sundays that may be more popular than the, but it was the contours. The lay of Sim Dewalt~r:. My name is Sim Dewalt-. I'm Chairman of the Building Committee and I'd like to address your question a little further. I heard it a little differently. What you were asking and that was access from the parking lot into the narthex and the sanctuary and the doors that Don has referenced, those doors right there do come into the same narthex area as the main doors do. So it isn't like they're coming into a second class area or an area that not's got easy into the san~_ ~sry. It's all, it comes into the same room. I think that's what I heard you ask. ~: Well that and distance. If you've been on aruwhes or in a wheelchair, you certainly bring a different perspective. Jim Dewal~er:. I have. Harberts: So have L Jim Dewalter: Actually those parking spots, the 3 up on top that he is talking about, that is Planning Commission Meeting - M~y 4, 1994 our current handicap parking and that is closest enUance to our paddng. Whether we look at the lower parking in the outlying or the upper parking and this is as conveaieat as we have ever had. I guess the additional convenience we do offer is the lower entrance he talked about as well as the elevators that were now incorporated into the plan. Harberts: So the elevator's new to the facih'~ then? Jim Dewalter:. Yes. F~: Is there still a substantial daycare operation right out of the church? Jim Dewalter: Yes. The daycare operation will continue. Pan of this plan includes a new entrance for the daycare which will be the lower entrance and new vestibule down below. Farmakes: How many children are in the care on a daily basis the~? ~im Dewalter: '[lmt daycare is not part of the church. It's a Chanhassen Development Center I believe. I think, that's why I clarify it's not probably true, I believe they're licensed for 78 children. Something like that and this has no effect on that. Farmakes: They share the parking lot though, corrext? They share the facih' 'ues? Jim Dewalter: Yes, that's correct And the most, with regards to the parking lot and daycare, there actually isn't any parking requirements because it's all drop off and pick up. Other than the daycare staff and they're there when of course the church isn't in session. Scott: Any other, since we're now w the applicant section, any off,er questions or commen~ for the applicant? Mancino: Just one more question about the daycare. Where does the, during the week, where does the daycare enter7 Don Wagner:. Where does the daycare. Don Wagner: Where do the children enter? Mancino: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Don Wagner: I believe they're still coming in the front aren't they and down the stairs? Jim Dewalter: On'renfly the children enter the daycare into what is our existing narthex, which is the doors that I pointed to you where the handicap entrance would be in the future. In this plan they will enter in a new vestibule ii, at we're creating down here. Harbem: Did you say that's a new daycare drop off? Jim Dewalter: It will be one of the areas, yes. Sco~ Any other questions or comments? Okay. Does the applicant or the/r representatives have anything else they'd like to add? Okay. I'd like to have a motion to open the public hearing please. llarberts moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing, Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Is there anyone from the general public who wishes to speak on this particular issue? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to dose the public hearin~ AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The pubic hearing was dosed. Scott: Jeff, your comments. Farrpsk,.~s: Just a few. I have concern about the relationship with the development being expanded towards the highway. The parking area... I'm going to te .ml~r that though. This is an existing building. It's been there for quite sonic fime...recent conceptual thinking. As churches often are, they're usually pretty pragmatic about how they make their impwvements being as they're always short on money. Other than the recoxmnendafions made by staff on this issue of dropping off and mm mound, I don't have any further eomruents. I think it's an expansion on this structure as it is and I do have concerns however about that parking lot encroaching on TH 5, although I cannot see another area for it to develop into. Scott: Okay. Nancy. Mancino: I just have a question for the architect. When I'm looking at this color rendering, I'm looking at a white roof. Is that what it is? Don Wagner:. No. Now the existing roof is a brown asphalt shingle and the fiat roof is 26 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 a...and gravel built up roof. Our new fiat roof would be a robber ~ with gravel on it and then the new sloped portions would be metal. Standing seam metal Mancino: Would you show me where those metal, the metal roof would be? And what color would that be? Don Wagner: We would go with a deep brown or a deep bronze because that would match the aluminum frames that are presently at the entrance. Mancino: Would that match the existing roof? Don Wagner:. Yes. The existing roof is..._this is a deeper brown or bronze. Mancino: Okay. Is there any problem with painting the existing block that maims up the church fight now? The exlm~or. Don Wagner: No. There wouldn't be a problem with painting that. Mancino: There's no problem with peeling or weath~g or7 Don Wagner. As long as you make sure you use the proper paint, that's fight And apply it in strict accordance with the rnan~'s recommendation. If there's a problem, go back Farmakes: But there is a problem perhaps with the Highway 5 ordinance, if that's ~ I think there's a stipulation there about painting block. Mancino: I know that there is about not painting brick. Aan~n: Right. Well it says no paint over brick. This is going to be the color fight here. They're not painting over the new but I think in the fact that it's yellow and they're bringing it into a color that's refined I think is much more palatable to paint over the yellow and to get it to a color we want than... Farmakes: I wasn't taking a position on that I was just wondering if it was a conflict. Aanenson: You're right. The minimal, that's what the intent is. Not to have it over concrete. Painted concrete but the new stuff, they're not going to...the old for blending I _think makes a lot more sense. Try to get it all look the same color and the yellow certainly... Planning Commishon Meeting - May z~, 1994 Mancino: Yeah. It will certainly add more maintenance for you. Don Wagner: The existing exterior material right now serves the material is a textured concrete block...and that's where you see the vertical striping that takes place. So it is a concrete masonry n~nit, that's fight. That's already been painted once or twice already and it will be painted again to match the new. Manoino: ...to see good landscaping plan around the building. I li~ what's there now and I would hope what you're going to put in is reflective of what's there now. In fact I was there wday and saw the transphnting of the crab trees out front so good to see that you're transplanting those. But what I don't see is any landscaping plan for, which I think is very important, for the berming between the parking lot and Highway $. Now I know that n~ one, you first need to get approval from MnDot and NSP that you can put a berm there. But what I would like to see in thc recommendations is that thc dty also approvc the berming and the landscaping that's on the berming. Because it needs to very much reflect, what we would like it to is to reflect what's in the Highway 5 corridor study and you know it's intent is really to screen parking lots so we would like it landscaped so that them is opacity there between Highway 5 and the parking lot. And I would also like to have a rendering. It certainly doesn't have to be black and color but it conld be a perspective of what you will see from Highway 5 as you look at this landscaped berm'so that we have a perspective and I'd like to see it from the viewpoint of Highway 5 looking directly at the church and also with plant matm'ial that is going to be in-tailed this year. For instance, I don't want to see a berm, a landscape plan with l0 foot tall trees if you're aco_ rally just going to put in 4 foot trees. So how do we do that and keep moving it on7 Aanenson: Well I ~ we do have i cross section. We did ask them to provide a berm cross section of TH 5. Don Wagner:. There is one on the site plan, yes. Don Wagner: We do have a cross section cut through the east bound lane of Highway 5 or this section looking due west and it shows the section to Highway 5 and then crossing it. We did put it on there. Mancino: Kate, what would be your suggestion? I would like to see it der it's gone through MnDot. I don't want to do double work here. Aanenson: ...put back on...at the beginning of the agenda. We did give the recommendations 28 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 that you were look-lng at...under that easement so really what we need now is the approval from MaDot to get their fight-of-way. We'll get that infonmtion to the applicant and then... Man~o: Okay. I would appreciag that. Then I would like m recommend us waiting seeing it again landscaped and getting a perspective from Highway 5. Other than that I have no co~ts. I think it's a good plan. Don Wagner: Thank you. I would like to add one other comment with re~ m the berm that you were addregsing. While we're proposing W work with MnC~ot and NSP on the benning, and we'll gladly work with staff to accommodate the plantings that you're suggesting. One of thc concerns and issues that we do have is thc location of thc berm adjacent to Highway 5 and that many of our plantings in the past all bum out from the snow Mancino: Salt. And salt spray. Don Wagner:. And so the concern is that only the cost of the plant main-ial but the fact that we could have a lot of dead mnterinls that would probably not be as attractive as no materinls at nil. So we'H need to give careful congdemfion to what all might be put on there. Scott: You know what might help is that we've got a, as part of our hndscape ontinan~, there's a list of many, many dozen trees nmi shrubs and basically what it also identifies, the name that you and I would carl it, the name that a landscape architect would call it and then it's degree of salt tolerance from very tolerant, which would be suitable for usage in that area, to intolerant and that's easily available by contacting our staff and that is a real good s opping Don Wagner: The other advantage that we do have going for us with regards to the concern you have about looking at parking lorn off of Highway 5. It's a combination of the elevation of Highway 5 and the angle of Highway 5 as it goes around the on thi~ bridge. And also the elevation of the parking lot. And so if you should drive by there, it's very, very dit~*ult to see the parking lot just because of all those angles fortnnn_~ly going in our favor in this case, and when we put the berm out here, I think that will off~ quite a bit of additional screening. Scoa= Good, Diane. Harbe~: I think it's a very nice plan for the church. For the addition. Landscaping's nice. I guess with what Nancy had said with the berming and landscaping, I think it's good 29 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 commits and I think overall it's a nice plan. That's it. Scott: Good. ladd. Conrad: Are there fiat roofs on any of the additions? Don Wal~nel':. Yes. Conrad: Which ones? Don Wagnen. This piece here, here and this corner. Conrad: Okay. And the rnam~ is what? The roofing matm'ial on the flat7 Don Wagnec. The roofing material will be what we call a single ply membrane. It's a rubber membrane. It would have ~ Put on ballast. Conrad: No more questions~ Scott: Okay. Matt. Mancino: Will there be any rooftop equipm~t on the roof? Rooftop equitnnent. W'fll there be any heating? Any ductwork? Or is that, is it going to be like what we see. Don Wagner:. No, we won't be having anything on the roof, to the best of our knowledge at this time. And if we do, we certainly will provide Nroper screen_ ing so you won't be able to see it. Because we understand that's part of the Highway 5 con/dor study also. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Ledvina: I don't have any further comments and I would support the surf recomme~lation. Scott: Okay. I just have one quick question for the archilecc One of the things that we're wrestling with is a relatively inexpensive means, and this is not directed specifi~y at your pwjecc We're looking for other visual tools that we can use to help us understand what a particular project's going to look like. This is the first time that I've seen something like thh. We've seen some photo composites and some more involved things. If you could give us just a rough estimate of what it costs to prepare something like that. This, and the terminology in architect parlance so we can perhaps introduce it because I don't know if the other commissioners, I felt that that's a very good representation of what it's going tO look Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 lik~. So I mean this is kind of a round the corner compliment m you. But what does some~J~ng like that cost? Just plus or minus $500.00. Don Wagner:. I'm going to have m, the general conuact~ ac~_ ml!y ,,lld that and L.. Scott: That's fine. Don Wagner. I'll find ~ out. Scott: I support this. Staff's recommendation so if there are no further commen~, may I have a motion please7 Mnncino: I move that the Planning Commission nppmvc Site Plan Review #94-2 for a 7,5(50 square foot addition to the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ church subject to the plan dated April 5, 1994 and subject to the following conditions. Number 1, number 2, number 3, number 4, number 5, number 6, mtmber 7, number 8, number 9 and number 10. I would just like to add that we, the city comes back to the Planning Commission to approve a landscaping plan for the berming adjacent to Highway 5. Scou: Is there a second? Ledvina: I second that. Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff recommendation with the modification. Is there any discussion? Conrad: What does that mean Nancy? Your number 10. I know what you asked far but what are you asking the applicant to do? Mancino: To come back, once they get approval from MnDot and NSP, to come back with a landscaping plan for the berming along Highway 5. Conrad: To us? Mancino: To us for approval of that landscaping plan. And I assume that it's going to come back to us if NSP and MnDot do not allow them to put a berm and they have to come up with a secondary plan. Or another option. Aanenson: ...part of the motion. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Mancino: Okay. I make that part of my motion. lim Dewalter: Could we have clarification on that in regards to timing? In fact our concern would only be that this would not keep us from going ahead with the immediate project which is the construction having to come back to Planning again with that berm reconvrm~dafion. Mancino: With the landscaping? How would we work that? Aanenson: Right now the procedure would be that they would go to the City Council and get site plan approval I think what they'l~ asking for is, if you do have specific concerns, that we separate the landscaping and we would cenainly...~ comndssion. If we can't work that out, then we come back and look at the landscaping and what other things we could do but as far as the rest of the site plan itself, that would allow them to go forward and if the City Council approves the plan. Mancino: That's fine with me. Conrad: I think we should. Mancino: I do too. Scott: Okay. Is there a second? Ledvina: I seconded it Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we suppart staff's recommendation with modifications. Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review 894.2 for a 7,.q60 square foot addition to the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ Church subject to the plans dated April 4, 1994, and subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall obtain and comply with MnDot's permit for constructing the berms and landscaping within MnDot's fight-of-way. In the event that no lam/scap~g is approved by MnDot or NSP in the ROW or Power Easement, then the atilt shall submit a revised lancls~ping plan for final review and approval by the city stuff. 2. Storm sewers and curb and gutter are not neces~-y with this phase of expansion. 32 Phnning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 However, future expansions may require the site be brought up to city .ordizmnce with curbs, gutters, and storm sewers. o Thc parking lot stall design should be modified to provide a minimum of 22 foot wide drive aisles and 8 1/2 foot by 18 foot long parking stalls. This can be accomplish~ by rcs~ping. o Thc applicant shall redesign ',he drive island drop off area to accomm~ proper bus turning movernent~ o Additional landscaping along thc proposed berm of Highway 5 as well as the southeastern portion of thc property along both sides of the driveway to the church. The landscaping along the driveway shall consist of a mix of 5 conifcrs and 5 deciduous trees as selected from thc city's landscaping list A landscal~d berm be placed in the MnDot ROW. If approval from MnDot and NSP cannot be gained, it is recommended that intensive landscaping for hlands in front of the main entrance and outside the utility easement area be desired and submitted far approval by city staff. o A staff review be conducted of this parking arrnngement annually for thc next 2-3 years to monitor paridng needs and to require the additional spaces be consuucted should the need arise. 7. All conditions as statrd in thc B,ildiqg Official's memo dated April 14, 1994. 8. All conditions as stated in the Fire ~'s memo dated April 21, 1994. o Any building fighting improvements shall be made in conformance with thc City's Lighting Standards and shall be subject to final review and approval by city staff. 10. The landscaping plan on the berm shall come to back to the Planning Commission for approval. AH voted in hvor and the motion carried unaninmuMy. PRELEVIINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 1, BLOCK 1, AND OUTLQT B, PARK QNE 2ND ADDITION INTO LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, PARK ONE 'l'HtUD ADDITION, A srrF. PLAN REVIEW FOR A 54~720 SQUARE FOOT WAI/EHOUSE EXPANSION FOP THE PRES~ AND A 10,31~; SQUARE FOOT KINDERCAIH~'. FACII.ITY AND A ~:0NDITIONAL I, JSE PERbflT FOR A LICENSED DAYC~ CF.~ IN AN IOP, 33 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARI~ LOCATED AT ~ NORTItWEST QUADRANT OF DELL ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY $. Sco~ If you could identify new information. Changes that have been made. You know we've seen this a couple of ~ already so if you can go that way. A1-Jaff: Sure. I'll try to make it as short as possible. You looked at this application 2 weeks ago. You separated the site plan by moving the Press forward and tabling When this went to the City Council, they recommended that this come back bet'ore the Planning Commission and be reviewed as one app~on_ So that's why both the Press and Kindercare are before you again today. There has been some changes since Friday, which is one day after the reports went out. We received a letter from Departmmt of 'h'aaspormfion stating that the original access lmint..into the daycare hdh'ty is located within the I)epm'Uneat of Transp~on's access control They basically said move it back north of this line right here. The applicant submitted this application, or this change by moving the access north of the line that Department of Tran~on recommended. We received this application at, it says here 1801 so that would be appro~y 6:00 and I don't know if Dave has had time to review this. If you have any conunents on this particul~ issue. Hempeh Not thoroughly. Farmakes: So they would be making, U-turning back out to that. As they go north they have to U mm and go south, that's one way correct that you're showing. A1-Jaff: C~rect Right-in, right-out It's still thc same as bcforc with the exception that it has been moved further north. It's approxim~ly 220 feet from the comer of the property line. Versus it used to be 150 feet from the comer. Hnrberts: So I'm guessing when engineering looks at it, the public safety will look at it too with regards to access with large vehicles. Hempel: Turning radius, yes. Al-Jaff: Another thing that has changed. We overlapped this transparency over the old landscaping plan. We lost 2 trees with this change. Another thing that was requested... Commissioner biancino was any ordinances, federal regulations regarding the electromagnetic field. We contacted thc EPA, thc EQB and NSP. We have received some studies. We gave you copies of them. Those studies are inconclusive. Some of them are pro. Others are against magnetic fields. We feel we don't have the expertise here to make a judgmmt on that. NSP sent their regulations. Those are definitions as well as setbacks that they require. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 It doesn't say that magnetic fields arc harmful or, agsin, It's an inconclusive decision fxorn all agencies that wc have contacted and again thc malcfials were received ~ ~y and today. That's why we couldn't include it with the staff l~port when we mailed the copie~ One change that we are requesting, the buildin8 o~ 8oin8 through the xqx~tt and condition 16 of the site plan approval Basically states the applicant meet conditions of Building Of~ial's memo dated March 25, 1994. And the building official req~ that these conditions be spelled out. There are only two conditions and they should read, submit a 1/8"=1" scale plan of the entire existing building indicating dimensions and use of all spaces on all floors. And the second condition would be, revise site plans to show site approach details and handicap parking stalls in compliance with Minnesota State Building Code, Chapter 1340. And with that, staff is recommending approval of the applications of site plan for both the Kindercare facility and the addition of the ~ a conditional use permit for the Kindercare and the subdivision as outlined in the staff report with the conditions. Thallk you. Scott: Okay. Questions or comments for staff please. Mancino: My only cormnent is, I would like to get staff's, have staff have some time to look at thc new entryway because I think one of our concerns has been thc egress and ingress of the Kindercare lot. And since we just got thi~ new information I would like to have staff · have some time to look it over and rnak~ a recomme~lmion, ~ To put it..through the Nrocess that we usually do. I would also like some time to read through. I know that Kindercare is concerned about the EMF's and the magnetic fields and I don't think any of us are scientist or anything but it would be good inf~on to look through and to get a little knowledge about. To be able to talk intetligenfly. Scott: Sharmin, was there any, you said they w~c inconclusive. Was there any sort of an indication as to which side of the fence the studies would go on? Meaning does NSP say it's not a big deal? Do the governmental agencies say not a big deal? But are there indepc~lent sources that say maybe there is a big deal? I mean is this just. Scott: Are they related in any way to the being in the power line business? Mancino: A little special intm~st. Scott: Yeah L you know. We have a pretty good pile of documentation that we need to go through and I'm just trying to, ff it's very parochial, as things tend to be. A1-Jaff: I think thc study that was sent by thc EQB, but even then th~'rc sayin8 in thcir 35 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 document that it does not represent or reflect the Board's opinion because the studies that were submitted, done for the EQB formally with their policies, none of the documents that we have would commit themselves to an opinion. They all give you statistics but that's about it. Fmmkes: I read both of the studies and it seems that the only thing that they can give you a conclusive answer on is that thcre seam to be less of a problem the farther you move away from it. That seems to be about it. There seems, I wondcr how much these documents cost because they really don't draw any conclusion and they have to be several taxpayer's dollars long so. I was frustrated reading than. Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff? We'd like to hear from the app~t. If there's some new information or, please let us hcer it. John Dietrich: Thank you. John Dietrich, RLK Associates. Again represen~g the applicant for the Press and Kind~. We are the site plan designers...engineering and landscape architects of the site. And with me tonight is also JOhn l~nne~ Of ~ and he will be able to address the issues of the placement of the building and provide some additional information on the EMF's frequencies and where some of those issues come from. As Sharrnin had indicated, the site plan that is before you is comparable to what has been shown on pozvions applications. The one change of the site plan has been the location of the driveway and based on obtaining information from MnDot and loo_iring at the site plan closely, I'd like to put up an overhead that identifies a modification of the access. Based on the need to move the driveway back, which also then assists in the cut through traffic issue that was a concern to the Planning Commission, we have looked at the specifics of the location of the access and of the building itselL It is our recommendation that the building site plan shift approxima~y 15 feet to the west and essentially come about 10 feet off of the existing curb which would still place the building 20 feet off of the ~ line and well within any setback reqtdrements. It would be proposed it would be a heavy landscaped edge along the western side of the building. That would allow more space on the eastern side of the building and allow the access to Dell Road to have a wider throat and a ~ turn radius into the parking lot, onto Dell Road. It would be necessary to have this for control of the speed and access to the lot from the Press and also to move the driveway back to accommodate the access control from MnDot. In addition to the driveway location, we have had discussions with staff in regard to the landscape area south of the parking lot. We will be going to enter into an easement for landscaping purposes to accommodate the street monuments. Landscaping or elements that the Planning Commission and Council decide... Mancino: My question is, have you thought about signage for ICind_e~are if we use that portion for a monument for the city. I mean where would the signage go for Kindercare if it can't go right there on that main comer? 36 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 199~ $ohn Dietrich: We feel thc signage elements would be a flexible element along the... Scott: Are there any other questions ar comments for the app~t? Or I mean if you have more people from the development team, sure. John Dietrich: I'd like John Finnemare to discnss the building location and the EMF's. John Finnemare: You can read the articles that were given to you and you d_~initely won't find anything conclusive. There really isn't any conclusive studies as far as EMF go. This is pretty much what I've read about electromagnetic fields and the majority of the reseawh has been done by the power company because they have the biggest stake in the matter. Sweden and France have passed laws on electromagnet fields and they're enforcing with their power companies, which happen to public. They're not private. They're publicly owned. They're relocating lines. They're doing things to reduce electwmagnet fields. Whether our country ever adopts any type of _s~na__srds ar not is definitely, the jury's out on that. The EPA has done a lot of studies themselves but ~ any other governmental EPA study, you can read it and then say, why did we spend money on this study? It doesn't say anything. Another thing too. I've purchased what they call a guaslmet~. These little old looking Texas Instrument calculator costs $550.00 to measure electromagnetic fields and what is mentioned a lot of these documents is, you ~ electromagnet fields and you give it a measure called milogaust. And they've used 2.0 as the level where they perceive problems possibly arising. And there had been talk, in fact I guess they were close to introducing a bill that was saying that schools and other sort of uses need to be at a level of 2.0 ar lower but that is, all went away. Nothing has went to apply that law ar bill. So we as a corn?any, just knowing that that may happen ar could happen ar that's been clel~mined to be a level, is the level we've adopted as what we try to ~ playgronnds and children away from. So that's what we've done here is you know, I went out and paced off at a point where I got a reading of 2.0 lower on my rnet~r and that's where we said it would be back from. The problem with taking measurements ~ that is they vary. You can go out there ? days a week and get ? readings at different, not drastically but you're, the k~ time to tak~ a reading is in the hott~t months of the year because that's when the major amount of electridty is going through the lines. But even at that, those are uansmi~on lines. I meant here's times when they lilm-ally shut them off. You just don't know. I mean they're on a big grid sysmm. The different power companies are connected. It's a tough thing to get a good reading on so we've just adopl~cl the 2.0 and that's what we're going with. ~y the biggest thing I've got out of all these studies was Carnegie Millen University did a study and a situation like this you can really do two things. Something ~ an electromagne~ field. You can just ignore it and say it's not a problem. Or you can just complel~y over react and you know move all the houses and everything you know 300 feet away from a power line. Or you can adopt a practice which, the term is prudence avoidance. Basically it just me~s that. You do things that are 37 ~g U_.ommi~on Meetin~ - M~y 4, 199~ prudent and economic and that you can do, you can do now which in our case, that is setting · our b~ilding back. Now we do have centers that are much closer to power lines. We built them years ago before we ever heard of the ,tmn electromagnetic field. Now, ff we took the step of the drastic step of just you know closing the center down, that would be taking a drastic step. But the center's already there. We built it. We built it before we knew there was a problem. Now in the case I've got a center in Tllinois where there's a power line very close to the playground. The city owns their own power company. They're so concerned about the issue, they happen to own the ~ next to us. They have a well site there. They're going to trade us 6,000 square feet of their property for widening of the easements so that we can move our playground farther away from thc power lines and put it onto their property. That's how concerned they are about it. It's called prudence avoidance. That's what you try to do. We try to avoid, where it's economical and it mak~ sense, you try to avoid it and that's realiy what we're trying to do here. And I ~ you can read, I've got an article here. I'll be glad to mak~ copies and send it in. It's a real lengthy article from thc New Yorker that basically this very article. But you can read just as many articles and put it in studies, scientific studies put out by the power companies that will tell you, ! wouldn't worry about it. It's very inconclusive. But we feel that we need, as a c~y, to set a precedence for our own well being and set back from it. A lot of people are now becoming concerned with this. When you do an environmental study of the site now, part of thc study !. ,-- : --is where they test for asbestos and all the chemicals, they give you electromagnetic field readings because pcople arc concerned about it. Everybody's starting to buy these little mctc~. ! mean who over's making these is making a ici]llng beoauso if this is worth you know, I mean I'd likc to be selling them but you just can't buy them any cheaper than this at this point. So it's, you know it's, we don't know if it's a real problem but we need to address it. You can't just ignore it because it could become a problem and someday legislation could be passed. Other countries have passed it and have si..~,nit~cant concerns about it. Mancino: John, on your buildings that are already existing, where they are close to the power lines and it's just soft,thing back in the early 80's or someth~g that you built it and this information hadn't come up. Are those still rnnning at full capacity? John Finnemore: The one that I'm the most aware of is this one in the Illinois area and parents were raising concerns about it as they read the articles in the ~ and asked, actually the city even came to us before we went to them with the proposed solution. I'm not really aware of any other ones that I can. In fact I know of a site in St. Louis where we were, actually wc owned land and we decided not to build on it because of the proximity of thc power lines and now we're trying to sell that property. I don't know of any other specific ones but I know wc have. And those arc the two X'm aware of and we're not bnilding on the one because it's so close. We're selling the land. We had penn!ts. We were ready to build. 38 Planning Commisgion Meeting - May 4, 1994 We've got major investment into the pmpe~ and we're now selling it because we don't feel tha~ we should be puuing a childcam cenl~ there. Mancino: Sharmin, do we have, ! mean we have power lines going through the city right now. ! mean in residential areas. South of ITlghway S that parallel the railroad, elc. Do we have those either residences or commavial establishments concerned about it fight now? Is there a concern in the city? Have people come to staff or to the City Hall asking about that~ Al-la/f: We're not aware of any such case. Aanenson: ...based on the other application we had last Plnnning Comnfission meeting, we also checked on residen~ issues because they were saying they were having a hard time with financing. As a note.., some FHA requirements an additional 10 feet. We did call HUD and we did call just some mortgage brokers to find out if they have concern lending and what we found out is, most standard...~g on who's underwri~ng it. Maybe insurance companies that said it's too close to the power line, they will not underwrite it. So there is some, for residential and maybe some issues that they do look at. Some mortgage lenders will look at that...power lines. .... Mancino: Is that multi-family or is that s/ngle family? Aanenson: Both. Mancino: Both? Okay. So it's probably on thc s~ondary mark~ becaus~ they're going to sell their mortgages to a seconda~. Annenson: Right. Yeah, and that's thc issue. Depending on who's doing the financing, that may be an issue to them. Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant or if the applicant has any other information? John Dietrich: I'd just like to make mention that we do have some m_n__teri_'als for the Kindercare site that are comparable to the plan _th_s__t you have previously been provided and I'd like to just quickly identify some on the site plan. That we are propo~ng. That it would be able to incorporate all the site conditions that you have previously mentioned. In addition to adding more evergreen trees as was suggest~ and a side~ going into that parking stall so that we would be in conformance with ADA req~ts. This plan does not show the realigned access onto Dell Road and we would incorporate that into the plan. And in addition, we have provided a site elevation perspective that would be appro~~y drawn from, if you 39 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 were in your car heading wcst at about the location of thc property linc ~ thc Kindea'care and thc Press facility. This is an actual Imrspeefive of what you would see as you werc looking towards the Press with the existing berm that is out thc~ and the exis~ walkin~g trail that is on the north side of the road. The existing coni~ trees that are on the berm and then the additional trees that we had lighten in for the proposed trees that will be going through the pazking lot and finally the little bit darker elevations on the Press that would be going through the site. So the l~a~q~'ve of the building would be dying into the began. And we anticipate this berm even coming up higher and being incc~para~ into the enhan~t element of County Road S and Dell Road. Or State Highway S. Mancino: John, can you talk a little bit about your point of view of the Press is very much of a, what do I want to say, you know an industrial, co~ type building. The Kindercare is a little homier. Has a different look. Can you talk a little bit about the compatibility between thc Kindercarc arcbitecttmfl style fitting in the IOP arca? I mean wc'vc got indusuial c~ in that whole area. Whether you look at Ver-sa-til and the other things that are going on in there. And then all of a sudden Kindercarc has kind of a different look going on. How docs that fit in, fxom your perspective? John Dietrich: From my perspective I feel Kind_e~,at~ has an opportunity m really enhance · the comer. It pulls the scale of the large industrial bnilelings down to. more of a human scale at the comer of Dell Road and State Highway 5, which I think will be a complimen~ eleffwat to an entry feeling. A green element coming into Chanhasse~ There's xcsidential properties both on the south side of Dell Road as we move into Eden Prairie and beyond the DataServ property. And I feel this is a mmsifion from industrial and still would be a strong and good compatible land use. Scott: Any other comments or any other information from the applicator? Good, thsnlr you. This is a public hearing and ff anyone from the public would like to speak, please come up and identify yourself. Is there anyone who would like to speak? Well seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public ~g please? Actually we didn't open it in the first place. Let's open the public hearing and then we'll dose it. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing? Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Let the record show that no one wishes to spcak at the public he. ming so can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Harberts moved, Conrad seconded to dose the public hearing. AH voted in favor and Phnning Commi.~sion Meeting - May z~, 1994 the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Scott: Diane. ~: rll pass. Scott: You'll pass7 Okay, Ladd. Conrad: I wam't around for much of thc discusaions so I just have to backlrack just a little bit. Be~ with me. A key issue for me is i .mpervious surface on this property and I don't understand tho slaff's report given, I just don't undo'stand why we can't pull it into con~liance so could you tell me why we can't. Al-Jaff: City ontinance states that as long as they are improving or, i .mpl'o~g an existing non-conforming. Conrad: Okay, yeah I saw that. They're adding 14,000 and 40,000. Now I guess what I don't understand is. · - Aanenson: You're not changing the impervious surface.. You're .expanding the building. We're looking at strict interpretation of hnpervious and the building... Conrad: Right, so what is, where they are expanding the building was parking bci'ore? Conrad: Okay. And the lots, the other lots do not count bccausc this was a lot of record? Conrad: And for some reason we allowed a 79% impervious sm'face. Aanenson: It was zoned PUD then and that's probably one of the things that...i~ous sudace. It was at one time PUD. Mancino: Ladd, you were here. Conrad: Yeah, I'm the only one that I can blame. That's real hrimfing. AI-Jaff: There wasn't a staff report explaining this ~ous sm'face. We went through all 41 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 thc Conrad: I think 70% has pmlty much been our standard as long as my mcmo~ serves. Okay. Thc roadway, basically thc fight-in/right-out off of Dell Dave, let me talk to you about this, and I'm not even going to talk about that one. Is it basically your feeling that this ~ should ~ scrvc~l via that road., that in~sl road7 And tl~ Press simply because we're not trying to encourage U tm'ns. I'm trying to figure out, that just is a lousy way of servicing Kindemam here. Brining them down an internal road like that. But is that basically the rationale that we won't force the U turns on Dell coming in from Highway 5 and circling around back? Hempcl: Ccrlainly that's the thought but we all know that U turns arc going to happen. It's the shormst mute, cvcn with the proper tr~__mc signage. Unlcss enforcement is there everyday, you're going to have U turns. Conrad: Is it staff rcconunendafion to have that internal road lilm that or was it pretty much the applicant's reco~on? Hempel: Well, it probably was a little of both. This is a difficult site to serve. I guess if you look at other induslrial parks and so forth, you don't have the major collector...two boundaries actually. Trunk Highway 5 and Dell_ So it kind of services the interior service road system similar to the shopping c~ntcr. Conrad: Okay. Couldn't make a curb cut or couldn't make any kind of a cut halfway through that Dell So we could service the north and the south part of this parcel? Hempel: I had conversation with the City Engineer... Conrad: ~m't do? Hempel: Weren't real comfortable with it. Conrad: Basically, huh. So what's going to be the access to that north lot? What's going to happen up there sometime Dave? Is it just going to be another, is there going to be a, is your forecast a curb cut coming out of that or right out? Hempel: That would be one of the access points as well as another interior access point for the service drive. Conrad: Okay. On a grade of 1 to 10, what would you rate this Iraffic system Dave? Less Pl.nning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 than 5? Never mind. Never mind. That's just a facetious conunent on my part. Got a lot of issues. I guess I'm not, I don't have a problem with the Press and some of the thinSs. I think everything looks okay there. I like the elevations. I think the Press looks fine. I'm really bothered by the knpe~ous mn'face. It really bothers me that we have som~ land and it's probably my fault from many, many years ago. Don't have a due why we did that but that's just such a basic standard. It just sort of hurts that this is happen_ ing here. I think the Press is doing a good job of expansion. They're a hell of a good company. They're ~ to have in town. But this is just, and I'm going to sWp talking because I don't see the solution right now. I really did want to flip flop. I reaUy wanted to move this playground and stuff to the south and I have a hard time doing that right now. I guess I will keep it the way it's local~l with the playgrounds and what have you away from the power lines, although I would have loved to have moved it forward. It was sort of a heater way to say welcome m ~. Rven though I personally don't believe this is the entrance to C~mnhas~-n. The entrance and the monument to Chanhassen will be the bridge when it goes up. That will be, in my mind, to say the statement saying, you are here, Whether they allow our maple leaf on there or our name. You know I'm not totally convinced that this is really that key an access poinC I think people will feel they're in Chanhusen when they get to the walk bridge. So that doesn't bother me. I like the transition of Kindercare there to the indusuiaL I think that's, as the appUcant spokesperson said, I think that's okay. I'm going to let the rest of you talk about some of the issues because I know*you care. about that but I think the tra/~ is just, I don't have a solution to my two problems. ! don't have a solution to the ~ous surface that I think we can enforce or do and I just don't like the traffic circulation but I tell you, I don't see without a curb cut or a median cut, I can't find a solution so I'm stuck folk~ Those are my comments. Sc, om Jeff. Farmakes: My comments are still pretty much the same as they were this last meeting. I don't have a problem with the proposed expansion. I understand the issue of i .mpervious surface and the critrria that was used so I'm going to argue with that. I'm going to voit to deny this for the following reasons. The foremost reason and that is that I don't think this conditional use should be enac~ upon until the Highway 5 issue is complet~ because it is a development along the highway. It is the eastern gate. I think that thc type d development that we're seeing in thc conditional usc of thc lOndercare is a ~ use that we see where the parking lot is shoved up next to the highway as close as you can get it. The discussion we had at the last meeting I think when we were discussing ~. I think pointing out the road median and I don't think an 8 inch curb would be c~maidered a suffident buffer. Anyway, the people that spent, community and business leaders that spent ¢on_giderable amount of time and input on the Highway 5 issue, and I think 3 of the people here on this commission. This simply does not conform to what we worked on. And it's in a pivotal area Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 of the city and whether it's the entrance per se, it's still very much a part of what was discussed in buffering TH 5 from, parking lots from exposed industrial areas. The fact of the matter is that obviously anybody who owns pwpeny wants to maximize it's full capadty. Property costs a lot of money in Chanhassen and it's understandable that the applicant wants to maximize out the potential of the property. However there are other issues involved as well in that park...I think are community interests. But however if thc city is serious about this, these particular types of pieces of property at intersections of main wads and so on, the city's goin§ to have to look at the potential of acquiring 100 feet here or 100 feet there. To get any type of true massing going on where you're bringing some relief, it's more than just building one ditch and a row of trees. If you look at some of the stuff that Morrish did, part of that has different types of massings and significant portions of landscaping, and I don't think that this qualifies for that. The next issue is a safety issue. The traits. This latest development. Even is more bizarre. Basically make a U turn out to the lane going in the opposite directiom You §o north to go south. I'm not sure what the shuttle bus type of use for somohlng like this is but I would assume that they would have to block both lanes making the turn. This makes no sense to me~ The issue of safety, these power line reports are really ridiculous. They don't say a thing and they come to no conclusion. It's sort of like looking at a cigarette report back in the 70's~ I do not have a problem ff this partic~ type of development went to the north site. I think that would alleviate considerable amount. --of traffic.. It would be a considerable distance away from the power lines. But I don't see a proposal here on that or a conceptual issue on that so I'm going to vote to deny this. Mancino: I really have no new comments. I agree with ~eff in the Highway 5 in it's not in keeping with the corridor plan and I also agree with Ladd and tm~c flow and that gets into a public safety issue for me. Having cars going through a parking lot where kids are getting out and going to cars, etc. I would also like, I don't know if I'd deny it or table it. I would like to get Dave's written conummts in a staff report on the new access point which you have not had time to do. And I'd like to read your words of wisdom and whether buses, etc, trucks, etc, can get in there. Other than that the only other comment is that we aho talked about a reduction of parking spaces for ICindemaze..That there should be 33 and I don't see anything. That hasn't been changed either. $o I would, my suggestion would be to table it Scott: Okay. Man. Ledvina: Well I would also agree with Jeff's comments and Nancy's comments regarding the site plan and Highway 5 standards. Traffic. ~y concerns that haven't been addressed or at least evaluated pwperly at thig point. I would like to get some input from the applicaut as to what type of action they would like to see, if I were to vote for it, specifically I would vote for denial. But I could also vote for a table ff the applicant felt that they would like to Phnning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 do that and come back. Okay. That's the extent of my comments. Scott: Okay. I really don't have any new comments. I was going to ask for your impression_ I'd like to see that. That seems to be a real pivotal issue and my guess is Dave, is that if it's not possible based upon the setbacks and the MnDot requirement of easement, that could potentially have a significant hnpact on the dovelopabih'ty of that pm'ticu~ pmxmi. A question that I have just a simple question for the applicant Is the ownership of that lot behind the one that you're proposing, is that owned by the same group of people as the comer lot? John Dietrich: Yes. The lot is cummtly, the entire property is currently owned by the Press and they have indicated that they would sell the southeast parcel to Kinderc~re and it is their intent to hold onto that northern parcel to maintain for future rights of develolnuent. Scott: Future expansion from their standpoint. So that basically would preclude the movement of the Kindercare project to that northerly lot7 Okay. I don't have any further ..-~-'-. Mancino: I have a question.- Did we get a perspective from, excuse me John_ This perspective, it doesn't show Kindemare at all John Dietrich: No it does not. In fact it was again taken approximu~ly on Highway 5 looking at the property line. Mancino: Looking that way? John Dietrich: Yes. · ~o: So.we haven't seen a perspective fi'om in front of Kindercare where that parking lot and what has to. John Dietrich: No we do not. I would be willing to say from the roadway, the berm continues to come up. We have approximately 70 feet of landscape area in the front from the south property line that is going to be completely screened unless you were off on the east side of. Mancino: And it's screened all year round or there's deciduous trees7 John Dietrich: The requirement is 3 to 4 foot berms and with the elevation of the road would P/arming Commi~ion Meeting - May 4, 1994 be down approxima~ly 4 feet below geaeral elevation. I s~ the ~ b~ing anywhere from 6 to 7 feet above the roadway elevation. Mancino: You know Kate, I think that that's a good thing to ask far every ~ingle development on Highway 5, especially when we're so close to the road. To mak~ sure that we get a perspective from right in front. What that will look like and again, with the landscaping, the massing of trees planted that year. Not in l0 years. What it will look li~e. But what it will look like in a present day sense and to ask for that far every one of them on TH 5. And the other part of that is, I think it's important for the opacity, not seeing the parking lot but also making sure that we landscape the berm on this side of Highway 5 so we just don't see this grass berm on one side. A question I have procedm~y for us as a Planning Commission and that is, all of us have talked about having some problems with the traffic circulation, etc. Scott: Can I ask a question that's really going to throw a curve ball on this one? Mancino: Okay. Scotl: John, could you put that overhead that shows the expansion of the Press. The one that you just had. It's just that view from above that you put up for the site plan. Yeah, it was that that. That one fight there. Could you put that up. Something just struck me. What happens to this. Let's say that the Press decides that they want to expand and they end up going, let's say they put another ~0,000 square foot expansion. How are they going to get to that parking lot? I mean I'm just trying, I'm trying to look out from a land use standpoint and trying to figure out what's going to happen. Let's say they build that thinE all the way across. How are they going to §et to the parking? Are they goin§ to be, probably have to sneak in throu~ that and cut, because you've §ot your playground there. John Dietrich: You're talking in this area here? Scott: Yeah. Or you're thinking it would be just like a stand alone facility? John Dietrich: It could be a storage facility. If that's whcre the expansion is going on because of all the technical equipn~nt that is in there. Perhaps it could be another free standing opcration for the Press that they wish to buy. Or it could be potentially... Scott: It could be another company or something? Okay. John Dietrich: But we anticipate it will be of an industrial manufacturing type facility or support for that type of facility. Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Scott: Okay, good. I was, something just popped into my mina. Any other7 Mancino: Well my comment's just proced~y. When a developer comes in at the last minut~ with some revisions, how do we feel as a commission when it hasn't gone through staff and stuff hasn't made a recormmmdation to us. And if we table it, it goes ahead to City Council without staff's input. Scott: We could deny it. It would go to City Council without staff input. Mancino: And if you table it, it comes back. Scott: It comes back to us. Mancino: After stuff has reviewed it. Fnnnakes: I think to a cemin extent thnt would depend somewhat if you thought it was safe to do with the operation. Scott: Yeah, and we were kind of iffy'on the public safety. Ledvina: This is.the third time we've seen it. Scott: Yeah but it's like new, si~onificant things krep popping up. Ledvina: Yeah, but other things haven't been changed that we've discussed. Mancino: But we can't, I mean I take it that the responsibility is to give City Council, to go over everything and to weigh everything and I can't really weigh this new entrance because I haven't I don't know if a track can turn in there. I don't know if a bus can use it. I don't have any of. those things which David would tell us. So that hasn't been thought through is what I'm saying. And it hasn't been thought through before it goes to City Council Scot~ And if they cnn, if we had two lanes coming in, we've got turning radius and. Ledvina: I see that as an important issue but I don't see that as the oven-i'ding issue that would t~ll us that, if it was okay would you approve the thing tonight? Farmakes: I understand what you're saying but, as far as my vote goes, it was unsafe to begin with. Not a logicaL.of uaffic. This new addition just makes it worst so I see what you're saying. Getting an evaluation of that but it won't affect my vote so. Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Mancino: Okay. Scott: Are we ready for a motion? Farmakes: That's just me. Mancino: Any other comments on what I brought up? Ladd? Conrad: I don't want to see it anymore. I think City Council will have thdr penpo~-tive. I think we've gotten the issues out. Yeah, it could come back I don't see you charting your vote. But the issue is there and we have at least one Council member here. We used to have two. The issues are there Nancy. I _think thc applicant's going to want to approve it. In lrrms of uaffic and I think they're motival~xi to show the Council whether it can or can't work and I don't know that it needs to come back. Mancino: But I also, we can add that to a reco~on. A condition that it be ~-viewed by staff before it goes to City Council and you add your thoughis to that new entrance. Conrad: Absolutely. That's a good thought. lohn Dietrich: Mr. Chairman? Scott: Yes. John Dietrich: I would just like to, the changes to the access, we were notified of that condition of the controlled access on Monday by city staff so we tried to turn that around as quickly as we could in order to show a modification and a mod/ficafion of that basically, that has access in was presented to staff when we first started the process and it was determined to go with the straight access so. Mancino: I didn't mean to say any negligence on your part. ~ohn Dietrich: But we're trying to, as thc conditions change, we try to... Scott: Okay. Any other discussion? Can I have a motion please? Don't everybody talk at onto o Conrad: Point of clarification Mr. Chainnax~ The motion that was passed to the City Council in favor of the site plan l~ZVi~, huh. Has anybody seen any changes to that motion? Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Mancino: Whore arc you looking? Lcdvina: From thc last time? Conrad: From the last time, yeah. Fnnnnkes: It was my ttnd¢~g on this piece, but you can nsk the staff. It was nH or nothing on this piece. Is thnt comet? Scott: That's thc way it's being presented. I know that the ouWon~ of the City Council meeting was that due to a technicality with regard to conditional use permits, the City Council cannot act on a conditional use permit until two things happen. One, a recommendation of denial or approval is made to the City CotmciL Number two, is a 60 day time frame to where if we don't make a recommendation, they can act on it. So the reason why it came back didn't have really anything to do with what we had recommended vis a vis passing the Press expansion ahead and tabling thc Kinderca~. It was the fact that they were not able to act on the conditional use permit without a recommendation from us so that without thc conditional use permit, the Kindeware facility can't be constructed. Fnrmnkes: Okay, so we don't have to revote on those other issues. We didn't viohtte anything nt the time that that was done. Scott: No. The opinion from the City Attorney was thnt there were no ordinances thnt specifically said we could split a project. There were no ordinances that said that we couldn't. So that particular point became moot and he focused on the very acces~b~ conditional use permit time frame and that was what he gravitated to. So basicnHy it was not remanded to us. They couldn't act upon it anyway because of ordinance. Farmak~: $o if we vote to deny it simply, or approve, we're just denHng with the conditional use permit... Scott: Well what we had, we're all clear on what we had passed on. It was tabling conditional use. Chan~ng the. Fmmake~: We voted on everything but thaC Mancino: Well no because on this site plan review. Scott: No, there were 3 motions. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Fannakes: No, I understand it was part of the conditional use and part of the site plan. It's . hard to separate the one from the other in regards to, essentially that's one lot right? Scott: Yeah. At least the way we proposed it. Outlot A I believe. Farmakes: I can't see how you can approve the site plan without approving the conditional Scott: Yeah because it's worthless if the conditional use permit isn't approved or passed on, Ledvina: I think it's just the other way around. I think you, if you don't pass the site plan, you can't have a conditional use permit. Because you can build the building. It's just, can you put people in it or what~wer. Scott: Can it be a daycare center in an ION Led~ RigUt. mgUt. Farmakes: I wasn't, when I made the comment a moment ago I wasn't de~ling with the order that it was coming in. The content overall Mancino: But I still don't have any problem with the Press and the Kinderca~ I still have a problem with u~t~ic, etc. So one I would say okay and the other one I would deny for a site plan review. Fannakes: As I understand it, we voted did we not? Scorn Well yeah. Mancino: But we voted yes on the Press but not on Kind_~re. Scott: Correct We tabled everything else, right. Ledvina: Right, because it's one site plan. Scott: Well no. No. Mancino: Now they're two site plans. 50 Phnning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Conrad: I think we can. Aanenson: There are two site plans. You ~commended approval of the site plan request and the subdivision. You rllrin't rna~ any action on the site plan and conditional use for the Kindercare. So that's what's still befor~ you. Your other motion can still stand but what you have to address is the site plan for the Kindercare site and the conditional use. Mancino: $o I su//est that we keep, except that Starmin has our original site plan for the Press we passed two weeks ago. I recommead that we keep it with the addition of the building code? AI-Jaff: The building official's conditions be spelled out as, I'm sure Nann got the verbiage but I can go throu~ the conditions again for you. Conrad: That was point number 167 Al-$aff: Yes. -. Conrad: Okay. They can figure that out. Mancino: So we use what we've had before and just add that to it. Okay? Conrad: Well, are you making a motion? Did you make a motion? Mancino: Yes. I move that we go ahead and approve the site plan that we, Site Plan Review ~ 1 that we approved on April 13th, 1994, which is subject to the following conditions and it is on page 4 of our staff report. Number 1 thru 19 with the addition of number 20 being conditions of the Building Official's memo dauxi March 25, 1994. Conrad: Number 20? You changed number 16, right? Mancino: No. I'm on page 4. This is the original site plan review. Conrad: I think the motion that the staff has in front of us is on page 8. Mancino: But I don't agree with that one because that approves both the Kindercare and the press in one site plan and I'm not recommending that we approve ~ site plan. Does that make sense? 51 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Fannakes: How do you define that? They're both ~1. Conrad: How can Kinderca~ be considered in the site plan for the Press7 Aanenson: She just separated them. Mancino: I've just separated them. I approve that we recommend approval of the Press site plan that we recomnm~ed on April 13th, 1994 on page 4 of the staff report which is numbem 1 thru 19 with the sddifion of nnmber :20 which reads, conditions of the B~fildlng ~'s memo datvxt March :25, 1994. And that approval is for only the Press sim review. Okay? Scott: Is there a second? C. xmrad: I s~ond that. Scott: Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commts~on reco~d approval of Site Plan Review ~94.1 for a S4,760 square foot exlmn~oo of the.Press building as approved by the Phmning Commi_,~'on on April 13, 1994, subject to the following That the applicant must revise plans to include trash screen_ ing of the Press site and show the type of ~ used to screen the trash enclosures on the Press site. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. ® The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south portion of the site, between the Imfldng lot and Highway 5. The he/ght of the berm shall be between 3 and 4 feet. The al~plicant shah also provide staff with a derailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantee~ These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. ~cre shall be added landsc~ing to the perimeter of the Press expansion of coniferous trees as suggested by Nancy Mancino. ® Thc applicant shall enter into a site plan &welopment contract with the city and provide thc necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 52 Commission M~ting - M~y 4, 1994 5. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo da~ed March 10, 1994. The Press addition shall contain some architectural derailing (with relief) to break up the long wall masses 0 Concmrcnt with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. Se Thc grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in thc parking lot's drive aisles for the Press. Detailed drainagc caloflafions for a 10 year storm event shall be submi~ to the City Engineer for review and approval e 10. Silt fence shall be placed along the narthern propexty line where the pazking lot for the Press is being relocated. 11. Deleted. 12. Deleted. 13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on the Press site north of the main parking lot area should be a minimum width of 2/5 feet with tttrning radiuses at 77th Street West of 30 feet and two way trdnc. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. 14. The driveway access point shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. 15. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000.00 to guman~ boulevard restoration. All boulevards 16. Conditions of the Building Offi~'s memo dated March 25, 17. The parking configuration of the Prem shall be incorporated into_ the final design approval given to Kindercare taking into account such thin~ as sidewalks for pedestrian traffic and traffic circulafl~ between the Press and Kindercare. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 18. 19. No rooftop equipment shah be visible from Highway $, Dell Road or 77th StreeL The impervious surface of the Press shall be a conforming permit at 70~. ~onditions or the Building Official's memo dated March 2S, 1994: 1) Submit a 1/8" = 1"-0" scale plan of the entire existing building indicating dimensions and use of aH spaces mi aH floors. compliance with MSBC Chapter 1340. All voted in favor, except Diane Harberts who was not present to vote, and the motion carried. Farmakcs: Should that be given a numb~ of ~ce7 Aanenson: Yeah. .. site plan review. Scott: ~l-A, I don't know but I think the verbiage is clear as to what's going on. Mancino: Now the site plan for. Scott: Okay. Can I have another motion please? If, do we want to have that as the extent of our motion? Okay. Conrad: Keep going. Motion. Scott: Oh, I was just going to say, let's give some more time and. C. xmmd: This is confusing Joe. Scotl: Well see I don't have to make the motion. That's why I can say it. But SUl~ we'll take as much time as you need to. Mancino: The next thing that we need to do is reconum~, or I recommend dcaial of thc Kin~ site plan. Aanenson: I think what's left is on the subdivision. When you subdivide it, depending on whatever you do with the Kindemnre...the subdivision along the line move to furth~ to the Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 east for the Press expansion. You left the remaining of that pwpa'ty all in an outloc So if, whatever you do with the Kinderc~ you need to...split that lot. Mancino: So we should do that first? Aanenson: Well L.. Scott: That was one of thc motions that we had last time was to. Aaneuson: Yeah, but you left it all as one outlot. You didn't want Kindercare to go in ~o whal~ver you do. Scott: And your motion is? Corn-ad: Well you're just, Nancy you just want to deny the subdivision. You don't need to say anything about Kindeware. You want to deny the subdivision because of ~ and all these things. I'm not making the motion. Sco~ Or based upon Dave's information, do you want to see that before we pass it on? Mancino: No, that would be fine if he puts a repc~t in before it gets to City Council I want to deoy the sulxlivision7 Conrad: I think you do. Mancino: I think I want to deny the Kinderca~ site review. Can I have some help from Al-la/f: Basically right now, if you deny the Kindercare, the sulxiivision would be done administratively because we're only moving a property line. We're not going to give them any additional. Aanenson: Yeah but it doesn't, it keeps that as one lot though. $o it would have to be split again so it prevents that other lot from being split which would allow the Kindercare...So if you ~ your motion as it stands, everything...to the Press expansion is still on an outlot. Mancino: Which is what we had before. Scott: Which is Lot 1, Outlot A I think is what you said. Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Aauenson: Correct. Yeah. Maucino: And we've already approved the prelinfinary plat for Subdivision//94-2 for Park One 3rd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A (Lots 2 and 3, Block 1), with the following conditions. And this is on page 6 of the staff ~3mrt which is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Any second to that motion? Fat'makes: I'll second that Scott: It's been moved and seconded. That we, it's been moved with a second, this really is discussion. No discussion7 Ledvina: Hold on. Is this a repeat of essentially the previous motion? Scott: A ~t but getting. Ledvina: But getting the outlot in there. Identifying the out, lot Aanenson: You did that before. Ledvina: Okay..4Jright. Scott: Would you restate that motion so I undm'stand what you're saying. Mancino: I'm repeating the motion that we made 2 weeks ago on April 13th on page 6 of the staff ~ which is I'm reco~ approval of preliminary plat for Subdivision ~ 2 for Park One 3rd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A (Lots 2 and 3, Block 1), with the following conditions. Number 1 in it's entirety. Number 2 in it's entirety. Number 3 in it's en~. Number 4 in it's entirety. Number 5 in it's entirety. And number 6 in it's Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commi _revlon recounnead approval of Preliminary Plat for Subdivision 094-2 for Park One 3rd Addition into Lot 1, Block I and Outlot A (Lots 2 and 3, Block 1), with the following conditiom: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. 2. Provide the following easements: a. A standard 5 foot wide drainage nm/utility easement shall be dedicated along the 56 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 common lot line between Lot I and Outlot A, Block 1. Ce A 15 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the west property line of Ouflot A to facilitate the extension of the sewer 3. Enter into a site plan development agreement act~table to the city. e A driveway or cross access easement for use of the access off 77th Street West. The easement shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, Block 1 and Outlot A. The easement agreement shall be drafted and filed concurrently with a private maln~~ agreement acceptable to the City. ® The developer shall obtain and comply with all necessary permits from the W~ District, Health Depamnent, etc. e Erosion control rrw~ures (silt fence'- Type l) shall be shown on the grading plan. Silt fence shall be placed along the north prolg:rty line where .the parking lot for the Press All voted in favor, except Diane Harberts who was not present to vote, and the motion carried. Scott: Can I have another motion7 Mancino: What other motion do we have to pass7 Conditional use7 Ledvina: No, we don't want that. This relates to the site plan for Kindacare, fight? Sco~ Well now there's an outlot so it hasn't been, it hasn't been subdivided for that particular parcel so, does that preclude us from then doing anything with regard to the Kindeware site plan and the conditional use permit now because there's no lot for it? Aanenson: There's no lot, yeah. Lcdvina: So is that it? Scot~ Now, if someone wants to make any additional motions. Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Farmakes: Well, what message are you sending? Mancino: Yeah, that's the important part What message, what are we sending to the City Council to make sure that they understand why we are denying this? That's what's Farmakes: It's barely an issue of lot lines... Scott: Or direction to the applicant. I mean there's a situation where, I think what we need to do is to say well, obviously we've got some issues with public safety, etc, etc. Maybe we need to do some if then. I don't know, I'm throwing that out. But right now it's, the conditional use doesn't go on. The Kindercare site plan does not go on. Basically we're sending them the Press again. Is that what you want to do? Conrad: That's okay. Scott: Okay. If that's what we want to do, then we don't need any other motions. -. Conrad: I guess I'm real confused.- Now Nancy, your last motion recommended approval of the plat for the subdivision. Scott: The Press expansion. Mancino: So I want m make sure that the Press is subdivided inw that lot. Scott: So basically it just sends forward the Press expansion and the necessary lot line movement to handle it. And that's because the original plat included the existing Press facility. It did not include where the expansion is going, ~? So we had to replat to make room for the expansion and then send the site plan along for the expansion so. Conrad: The original plat did not have on iL Ledvina: This is what we did. This is what they wanted and we took this line out. Essentially. They wanted Lots 1 and 2 here and we just made it Outlot A, or whatever, so we took that out. So we said that would have to be the entire piece then. Scott: So basically the signal or the message that we're sending is that the same thing all . over again. Press expansion is fine. There's still some additional issues. Now just the next question then. If Dave comes back next time and says hey. Thi~ works just fine. Are there 58 Planning Commission Meeting - May ~, 1994 some other things because I think what we want to do is give the app~t some very specific direction and say hey, if you do this, then because I don't want ~o just have this kind of fluffy thing going on. $cou: If it's a parking lot in back. Fro'makes: I think we're just repeating ourselves. .. seveml tim~. In listaning to the applicant, both here and at City Council, it seems to me that they're. Scott: They don't want to change,, Farmakes: That they have a pretty concise idea of what was necessary to move that forward and_They chose not to deal with that so Ladd's right. Deny it and send it forward. Mancino: And the issues arc Highway 5 which Jeff eloquently said and. Scott: Okay, so we're. Mancino: And traffic ~on and no staff report on the new entrance. Scott: So arc wc all sati_'.~ied that thc motions that we passed indicau~ the direction we want? Yes? Farmakes: I'm comfortable. Scott: You're fine. Ladd? Annenson: Can I have a clarification on that them Because you didn't act on it, we have to pass the 60 days. The Kindercare is stilL.. Annenson: So thc Press is going forward but the Kindercare stays here? 59 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 19~ Fannakes: I would be comfortable denying it and sending it on. Aanenson: Well you have to have a motion... Scott: And that 60 day time period will be, since it's the commission we're talking June 4th? Because we got it on April 4tic June 4th? Aanenson: Yeah. Scott: Okay. So one way or the other the conditional use permit's going to be able to be acted on by thc City Council Aanenson: Right, but if you want to put it on your next agenda, that's fine. Otherwise it will just sit in holding until you... Scott:. Yeah, I mean I'd like to hear what you have to say. Because that's real hnpormnt. Public safety is an important issue. Mancino: So we have to make a motion? Scott: No we don't. Aanenson: ...unless you want to put it back on. Scott: Okay. Item 5 was deleted.. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mandno moved, Farmakes seconded to approve the Planning Commission Minutes dated April 20, 1994 as presenl~i. All voted in favor and the motion crrv cO rNC UP ATE. Aanenson: ...was given final plat approval ...I-Ieri~e plat that you recommended denial and the City Council did also. What we found out with this plat is the exmudon of that street will.., run north/south along the eastern border of 'l~m_herwood. As we find out what that pLat...so we had to work to get that resolved and...The Council did approve a design charette for the Bluff Creek corridor and as I mentioned before, we were able to get Bill Monish to participate in that so that's scheduled for May 26th. We would like one representative of the Planning Commission to make themselves available for that meeting. And what we'll do after that, this is just to give us some design fr_s__mework because we feel as a staff, we don't Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 have the tools in place to...It's such a sensitive area. This kind of gives us a starting point and wc're hoping that w~ can get some...and eventually an ordinance. We would also with this granting of that place...The Council did approve the first reading of the, the first time it went through they tabled it for lot line information which we thought we'd let you know about...they had approved the first reading so... Scott: Can I just ask a quick question? What did. Aanenson: That was... Scott: Good, thanks. Aanenson: ...I'll contact him and find out what exactly we get with the price and you know it's funny, after that Council meeting we wanted a list of vendors so we...about 7 vendors now as far as the different types of technology. Mancino: Even what we saw tonight? I wish it would have had color though. Aanenson: Well that was part of it. I think wc could have wofltcd... Mancino: Because I couldn't see the roof. Aanenson: ...we can work to get more represmtative of what's out there. Scott: Yeah and I think one thing we can do with isometrics is one of the problems with isometric drawings is that how you choose your vanishing points. So I think if we can get an isometric drawing that has vanishing points that make more sense to what it's really going to look like, that may be a rather inexpensive tool that we can use. Okay. Aanenson: They approved the second reading of the wetland ordinance. The reason they held out on that was...mitigation so they did approve that. Second reading. They approved the buffer monumentafion. The question on that was they wanted to see ~ mon~tafion. It looks really nice and it will be... Scot~ I know Matt, I don't know if you saw that but I mean, I know that w~ one of your issues is what's it going to look like and they're 20 feet tall and they're blaze orange. No. Do you want to ~ell him what they al'e? Aanenson: They're on a gray post. They're 3 inches wide by 24 inches high and they're on gray posts and they'll be...wetland logo on thc top. And the intent for that is again so people 61 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 know that that's the edge. They shouldn't be mowing. Ledvina: Is there any letters or anything on it or just a wetland7 Aanenson: No, it says Wetland Buffer Edge. And again, it will be one comer of your lot so it won't be on both comers so every other lot comer so you don't have to have it blocking your view. Mancino: And isn't the lettering I/ray or brown? Annenson: h's brown with like a light tan lettering. So it's subtle. And when you have the tall grass...We're putting those in place right now. As nil new devel~ts come in, we'll be...catching those and...As to number 6. Kindercare...First reading of the hndscaping and tree preservation. I think the City Council was prel~ excited about the work that went into that and we got real positive results so that will be on the second reading at the next _meeting. And then hopefully we'll be able to, af~ that there's a publication requiremem and so we'll be starting to enforce that... Mancino: What I think was exciting is to actually have two City Council people you know - :- say, that was just a tremendous ardinance.. I mean you don't hear that too many times. Aanenson: ...we are trying to do some different things so I think...I just want to talk to you about our PUD process. You know we're frustrated. You're frusuated. So what I put in here is a diffaeat approach and I just wanted m run this past you and see what you think. What we do is we get the concept. You know when you know it's single family and it's going to stay single family but we're just looking at the lots I think it's not quite as corr,,lex but we,..it's a big compl~ issue and how do we get a stnning point and what's everybody's comfort level to move to the next and that's what we're having a downfall on. Staff included. We spend a lot of time on the staff report Make them bun~ out a significant period of time before they can get on an agenda and then to get here and we're not getting you the fight information and so what I was thinking is that, we have a public hearing requirement so what we do is go ahead and just give a 2 or 3 week, enough to meet the notification and just let the applicant give you...a generalized site plan. We put these at the end of the agenda and...we sit down. Dave would stick around. They bring thek professionals in and we just try to flush out the main issues. These are some sensitive things and you give them some direct/on as to what to come back for the concept. So it's kind of a pre-concept. I think it would serve everybody's time a lot better and if it's okay with you, I'd like to try that for the next one. Now the concept one that you...last time, CCC is coming back. They're coming back. You gave them direction to come back with aH industrial or multi-family. Kind of a mix... 62 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Mancino: The zero lot line. Aanenson: Right. So what I did ask ~ m give a couple perspectives tlm~/h the site. Some site elevations showing how they're going to address the topography. Apply some different perspectives so hopefully again tha~ will help us just a little bit mor~..would have been I think helpful to...what information you need and g/ye that to them so we're not wasting everybody's time doing a detailed report that doesn't get us anywhere. Sco~ Yeah. Well you know there's something that crossed my mind is I know whenever I've been in a situation where I've had to sell to a committee, which in effect is what someone's doing when they're coming to the Planning Commi~on. The best way to increase your chances of success is to call some of the people on the conmfittee, or get in contact with them and I think this would be a good oppciXu~ty before a lot of expense is undertaken. Just to say, and then they can find all the hot buttons and go, ooh geez you Aanenson: Yeah. If you guys aren't interested in that high density, let's before we stm't doing more perspectives, just if you're not in~ in that at all let's say, hey we just don't think it's going to work.on this site. Let's get th~ on the table fight away so I think if we can just say, or you say maybe it would work and these are the things that you need to do to make sure that we can make it pahtable. And I think that would be good. Scott: Okay. Aanenson: And if you feel comfortable with that, then we'll try it on the next one. Conrad: Let me just kick that around a li~e bit. On the one hand I don't want staff off the hook, and I'm not sure. You know when you do thst, you're taking away certain responsibilities, and I don't know what you know, if you're giving thai away. You're lakin§ them over from Kate basically. So you've got to be comfortable you're taking those, and we're not talking specific issues but the challenge is, and I wam't here. Didn't hear this. If you don't have a PUD ordinance, what we're going to do is have s~ Aanenson: It's a pre-concept. Conrad: Where we take over the needs that we would like in a PUD. And I guess just on the surface I don't understand. If we're not getting what we want, then we should be changing the PUD ordinance. $o I don't understand why it's loosey goosey. Let's bring it in and see what we all. Let's take pot shots at it. Unless we can't get the ordinance any better. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 If the ordinance is pretty general and we don't like it, then you're doing the right thing. I ell you, you have to make staff accountable. When they're negotiating, that's Rmir job. For negotiating trade-off's or recommending that it be a PUD. What I hear here is, you want to take over some of the stuff so, and I'm not, you know somebody has to ~ me that that's right. But right now I don't feel real good about it. Again, there has to be some absolut~ in requirements of a PUD. I can't believe that we can't fine tune what we want in a predictable fashion. Fnmiak~: Well I think there's a duplication of effort going on in regards to taking a PUD. Combining it with the Highway 5 objectives. It's not necessarily a directive onto themselves but you combine the two together and you look at the issue...as an example. I'm not sure if you were, I don't believe you were here at that meeting but the issues that we were looking at were the same typical ones that we discuss on this Highway 5 issue about how close do the units come up? How many are there packed and how close are they to the highway? And the issue, if you go to something like zea~ lot line, you can get some space between the highway and the units, that's... Conrad: But Kate knows what you have in-the Highway, it's not in concrete yet so it's not ordinance~ We can't enforce it so we're talking persuasion right now and you're telling me that Ka~ can't tell the developer what we're looking for? Famvdn~: They were sensing some fntmafion in the meeting, as I recall Maybe can chborate on this, that they were spending a considernble amount of money in prescntnfion ~ nmi didn't feel that they were getting a clear direction in regards to not only land usc but concept. Mancino: Yeah. I mcan what we're talking about is concept, not PUD but what is the expectation at the concept stage. Whether it's a PUD or whatcwer it is at the concept stage. What should be in a concept? I mean these people wanted just to know land use. Well there's a lot of other things that need to be talked nbout during the concept stnge just besides land use. There needs to be natmal resources. How the, concep_ms_lly this plan utats the natural resources. Ciroflation. Etc. Ledvina: Except those are all fled together. Because ~ will ~ the land use on a properly designed developm~t. Mancino: Exactly. Farmakes: And there can be buffer areas where you have more than one use to consider. Planning Commisdon Meeting - May 4, 1994 Next to a school Next to an environmentally sensitive area. Look what we did with the Arboretum in discu~ng a PUD up on TH 41 and TH 4. Scotc And I think the way staff can work this too is that there are ordinances and then there is stuff that is going to be ordinances and then there's the intent thai I think you guys have picked up on from working with us where we have certain hot buttons and things that we zero fight in on and although it might not, well I'm not going to tell what your place is, because that still is in flux a little bit now, but I guess some of the things that I think would really help the developer is you can take a look at something like with the Heritage. Here are 19 things thai we think are just really off base. It's almost, I think you're doing everybody a favor saying well I know the Planning Commi~on and when I look through and I see these 7 things. The Planning Commission's going to non-linear when they see these. It's probably betler use of your time to change what you're going to be presenting to do a betler job of addressing these before you go in front of them because one of the things that I had a conversation with John Dobbs afterwards and he was you know, he was pretty frustrated but I do have to give him credit. He used his ~on to kind of con~ out and say, well how do we do this differently next time? My suggestion to him was, is to, now that you know what the Planning Commis~'on ~ and the things that we focus in on, is take those really seriously and one of the things that I mentioned to him is that personally when I saw the staff report and I saw the comments of the large amount of things that needed work, I had a really hard time listening objectively because I'm going boy. This development really needs a lot of work. $o maybe the thing that you can do on everybody's behalf is to highlight the environmental things. You know what they all are, Highway 5, etc, etc. You say hey, ff you want to have smooth sailing, these are the kinds of things thai you need to do. Aanenson: That's what we do and that's... Conrad: They have to do that. They wouldn't be doing thek job if they didn't. Scott: Yeah, but then when we see it. Aanenson: When we load it up with conditions, that's at a concept level, that's where we're saying, listen. You're a specific...these are your marching orders and if lakes 100 things, we try to. I ~ the problem is I think we've given them too much details. Spedfically we want to see this, this and this. I mean that's why those lists get so long and I know that makes you nervous. You th/nk oh, they're so far off the mark but we feel like, look at all the things we caught. You know, these ~e all the things that We don't want to see you back Mancino: You should charge for doing their plan for them.. 65 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Aanenson: ...because we look at it as, look at all the issues we think you still need to do and you're looking at it like it's not close but why would they be recommc~ling approval Scott: I'd agree with that. I think that's the way I look at that. I go whoa, this is a really basket case. We've got to send them back. So I think that's maybe something that I'm not. Aanenson: That's what I'm saying. How do we get past that because I think that is a problem existing and L..with all these issues. And what we're saying, if they come back the next round and address these, then we'll feel pretty comfortable. Scott: You know what it's like, it's right now this is really a tight, it's somethin§ that's been beat up because I guess. Aanenson: And that's what it is Joe. That's a good way to put it. That's... Scott: I view our role as sormwhat qnality control because we're, when you think about all the commissions that send stuff into the City Council, there's no way that they can, although sometimes they do get into levels of detail that we think, or I think anything are, we've already been through that. But I view pan of our job is to really, you beat stuff up before we see it and we beat it up before the City Council sees it so they have maybe more manageable issues to deal with. But if they want to go into more detail, that's their prerogative. Farmakes: h seems that the more money that is spent on development presentations, the more untractable they get to changing anything. Aanenson: The what7 Farmakes: The more untractable they get in changing anything. They seem to be commitUxi to it. When we start talking about move this here or there and then it seems that they'll cut you very little~ Aanenson: Exactly and that's why we always felt the concept should trolly be, it's not as the ordinance says, it doesn't give us any legal binrling. All we're saying is, you know we could live with this if. And that's what we're saying, if. Give them the list. Or we say, you know we just plain don't like it. There's just, we don't think it's appmpfiate...What you're doing is you're creating the shelving where you're going to tell how it's going to flmction. If you don't like it, deny it. Deny the zoning. If you do like but they have to do the following thin~s, then you recommend it that way. Or if you need specific infolmati~ like you know, I think that's fine. Elevations, perspectives. You want to see more about the type of products you're talking about. I think they were all very appropriate things to say. Let's Planning Cornmisdon Meeting - May 4, 19o~4 table to look at that. But for some reason I think we haven't been able w, I want to give you the infonnm/on that you need. I want to give the developer the information he needs and fight now I feel like, we're not doing that effectively. Scott: Are you saying that perhaps what we need to do is to, ~ of seeing, tabling something and say fix these conditions that staff has made us aware of before we pass it on, are you saying, well let's pass it on with these recommendations m the City Coundl and then when it wanders through thc process again, we want to make sure that they've addressed those? Aanenson: ...but if you don't feel comfortable saying you know, I think what the staff's identified is a'good thing. I thought. .. but you know, I'm not sure that w~er. That they've done a sensitive job with the wetland. I want to see more. I want to hear more what you're going to do about that. Or I want to see more what you're going to do with Bluff Creel= What is your vision? Or I want to see the type of...what kind of ~ Table it. Scott Yeah, well I think Jeff's comment's real hnpormnt because if we were to lake, let's 'say the Heritage. If we would have token that and passed it on with all those conditions, they probably would have pmnped more money into it to get ready for City Council Then when it comes back around. Aanenson: I think they would have pumped more money into it. I think they're just trying to nst ouc Scott: Well, I'm thinking they're kind of ~ what, they're going to interpret, oh great. Okay this is the plan, let's go. Conrad: I've got to figure out what the issues are here because it's not that I'm against what maybe we wanted or the process but I guess I'm, you know Kale leverages our opinion on those developem She knows where we stand and she can say, well it's not going to go through unless you do ~ Now if we're up front, I'm not sure if we're helping the process, seriously. She can be saying well, she's negotiating behind the scenes all the time on this stuff so what I see the process doing is, she's not involved. They come in here immeals~ly and we sort of take at it without very much of a presenlation. Huh. Hey, I don't like that. I know that there are some things, you know we've got some i~ues and the Highway 5 is an issue because it's not cast in concrete and we're trying to leverage the developers ourselves because she can't but that's not a reason to change the process, because we're going to say please. Could you please do that because we can't make you do it but would you please do 67 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 that. Now she can leverage our opinion because she's making 'some trade-off~ before she comes in. So I never mind concept stuff coming here Kate. I li~ that. I like what we did; when do we have the concept or thc skeWh plan7 What is it when we get the concept coming in? Is it for a PUD? Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: So we've always done that. We've always had some, what do you think? Here it is. Here's some drawings. Here's some architecturaL So what you're doing is a pre- concept You're saying before they even do the drawings let's come in. I tell you, I'm not sure I want to be there. Mancino: Okay, okay, okay, but here's where I still have a problem. I mcan I agree with you but when I sec thc concept, their original one, then I sec staff recommendations and it's 45 reco~fions, because you guys have done a gxv. at job. No question. I mean it's in depth. It's fight on but it's kind of like maybe I'm such a visual person that then I need to see those recommendations, I can't, I need to see them out in front of me to have the visual contact because I can't tell you how much I rely on I mean the whole process. The visual and the verbiage. Conrad: Well that should be part of the req~ts. The specs. Mancino: But I don't see it with the concept plans that are coming in. I see thc verbiage because they've made all the recommendations but I don't see the visually... Ledvina: C. hangc thc specs in the ordinance. Conrad: Let's change the specs. Yeah, absolutely. Ledvina: That's where it needs, to go. I think we need to know about, we need to tell them about natural featme, s. We need to tell them about traffic drculafion all woridng together with land use and I don't think it says that fight now. Aan~n: You're right, it's very general Led~ Okay. Well that's where we need to, that's the nail. We've got the hammer. Mancino: And surrom~ding land tl~ relationship. Just the written objectives of the development and also just character of the development. I mcan what's going to be some of the construction details, I mean etc. 68 Planning Comm/sdon Meeting - May 4, 1994 Farmakes: It seems like every time I see a PUD, and I've made this cotnment in the last one that I saw, and you see in a concept. You see the property maximized out again and there's 10 feet of green space around each hctmlt and there's nothing but homes from one end of the property W the next and the den~ty is I forget what it is, 8 W a unit or 8 to a acre or something. It frightens me to look at that kind of thing when we're looking at it as a concept because it's so. Mancino: But that's before the ~tisio~ That's before the staff recotmnendafion~ Farmakes: But even so. What I'm saying is, if that information came out of a horse trading semion and that drawing came forward, there's an inte~.st of the developer on how to do this and every time it seems to follow on TH 5 for some reasom I don't know if it's because we've created sort of a high density corridor or what it is and that's not really what we want there. But what we're seeing is, if it's a PUD and it's wall to wall houses, what are we getting for the PUD. Conrad: Well now you're talking about the real issues. Farmakes: Right, that's what I'tn saying. Conrad: Well, okay. That's different than what we've been talking about. Scott: That's lilm what I point blank asked the developer. I'm saying what is the City of Chanhas~n getting out of this PUD. It's like we're paying to move this thing. You're packing stuff in fight. You're eacroaching on the wetland. What's the deal? And ~m you get words. You get verbiage. Farmakes: The counter back then is, well we're building affordable housing. You can't buy an acre of property for under 40 G's in Chanhassem Well, that's a no win solution unless somebody subsidizes the purohase. Or you build 8 units on an ac~. Scott: Yeah, or you do something with the density. Farmaims: Correct And somebody subsidizes ~g. So I mean with that achievable goal of creating some affordable houshg and you're looking at 300 units and you're thinking gee, this i~'t exactly scatmred sit~ housing here for affordable housing is it? I mean boom, right there. And it's really not what we're uying to achieve, at kast as I undeamind it. Mancino: Ka~e, s_tier going to the liRA joint meeting with the City Council, we're not going to have any low affordable housing by privale industry anyway that comes in. 69 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Aanen~n: I don't think so. We did meet with this applicant again and we did talk about what the dollar amount would be for affordable development. We put in the staff report, and this goes back in, this is where I need direction from you on because that pwpa~ is zoned single family... Now, this was direction given by the previous director that maybe high density multi-family is more palatable than industrial based on the fact that if you look at the higher uses. ~tial is less intrusive than indusu'isl but as you heard from the residents, they felt maybe...industrial might be more palatable than high density. Mancino: Well especially from what Jeff just said on the north side of Highway S. The Highway 5 corridor study suggests that it be mulfi-fitmily. Aaneuson: Except we know what's going in there. Really there's not going to be that many pieces of high density multi-family. There's going to be twin home projects. There really isn't high density. From what we know, it's been tied up. I'll be happy to share that with you when we talk about Highway 5. There isn't §oing to be that much high density. But anyway, back to where we did...We put in that recommendation that we did feel it was appropriate for the high density...never felt comfortable with that and we did recomme~ that but we did think, if for some reason they did go with son~ sort of subs~di _~d housing or moderate priced housing, and that may be a reason under the PUD, which it does say in PUD ff you're get~g that son of housing product, that that may be a reason .to give it. Scott: Well one thing we need to do is, I m this affordable. Okay, one of the things that we, at least see what you other folks think of when you say affordable housing. The next thi~§ in the parenthesis should say, as defi~cl by the formula recommended by the State of Minnesota which is. Aanenson: We've got the formula. Scott: That baby's got to be fight in the ordinance because the, I mean Terry Forbord has got a different idea of what affordable hon_~in§ is. Aanenson: You're fight We were mis~ing that I think that would be the reason we felt if you did want to §o with the higher density, that would be one way and that's with the PUD because you're getting affordable housing. Scott: And then define affordable hou~ng. Annenson: But if you don't feel comfortable with that. Farmakes: I'll tell you what I would like to see is some forms at public hearings going on in 7O Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 some regard to getting public opinion in regards to subsldi~ed housing. I haven't seen any informational meetings. I haven't seen any ed~onaL Maybe putting something in the newslet~. City newslei~r and clarifying thai t~is is a problem and soliciting thoughts as to how we solve this problem. I hate ~o see this problem solved politically from the $1a~ level on down with this group home thing. Leaving holes in it. Leaving lack of subsi_'r~i~on. Financing. Having political ends ben~tfing other areas w~re these houses are not going into, Le. Minneapolis as usage for very low income percentage level based on all their precinct meetings back and in several of their precincts they have no low income housing. I think that there's a lot of meUo~litan silliness going on in trying to determine what that is and I think the end goal is not necessarily affordable housing but a distribution of social Scott: By rel~g the consumem. F~: Without quantifying and qualifying these issues, I don't think we're being responsible getting that information out to the public and having them respond to thek ~ officials as ~o how we deal with this type of stuff. I don't want to see, and be extremely disappointed if it's like the group home issue which does solve some necessary social things but also omits several issues. Fomma~ly we haven't had that problem here yet but that that · . hole is there. The door is open for that. And I hope we can solve that issue from the ground up rather than coming down and to quote the...it's a done deal There's nothing we can do about it. The State's making us do it and then we all kind of look around what are we doing here, but. Conrad: That's a good point. I wish we knew how we handled affordable housing here. If we handled it, we haven't handled it very well Scott: Well I could be willing to be that any son of subsidy is going to have to come, I don't know whether you'd have to have a TIF. Aauenson: Well that's...trade offs because they get higher densities and they spread a few units out just like...and that's the trade off for the high den_sity and that's where they have to make the pitch to you to say, you give us this, we will do this, Conrad: But the trade off is, you're tr~__ding density off but you don't want to trade the quality of facility off. But they're pyridoxic. You know it's like we're going to force you to spend money on that building because we don't want it falling down. Brick or better but we'll reduce, we'll give you 3 more units an acre. So I don't have a clue. That's a really good point Serf. Rather than somebody telling us how to do it, we're going to have to do it but I don't know how you do that and really make it work. 71 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Fmanak~: I'd like to point out a couple of areas where the city. Mancino: There is no, you can't make it privately fimded because of the 1986 tax laws, etc so that's what they talked about in HRA. It will be publically funded but privately managed for real low income. Not affordable but I'm talking low income. Farmakes: The federal government defines it as low, very low, very, very low and they've got an entire list that they use now for qualifications for the medical care. I believe it's a standard throughout defined by income and so on. I'm not sure that thc Slate is using that as a guide and I'm not sure that the city or the county is using that as a guide. But if we look at some other issues where federal monies or state monies have followed this problem, there have been some gross mismanagements and terrible developments. Cedar-Riverside for instance. There's an example of federal money that built an idiotic development. Concentrated. Poorly managed. Nobody wants to live there that lives there and my point to that is, when there's a financial incentive, either the developer or of the area. Hey, it's federal money being spent in our account, you lose this motivation that is out there for a community to...to maintain it. To build it. To contribute to the conmmnity and I think you lose some of that when you get these false...going on. Conrad: So is it possible to say, what is affardable housing look like in Chanhas~n? Every time we zone high density, everybody can't wait to reduce the density. You know our feeble atmnpt to bring in affordable housing in here is that we get little pockets down here that we've zoned 8 to 12 units per acre and that's it. That's high d_~sity. That's aff-ordah~ housing but boy you come, a developer comes in with 4 units or 2 units per acre, we can't wait to change it. You know everybody says smile, says boy that's great. Now we're, and you know I love open spaces but you know, so here we've zoned it. We've got it but we're not doing anything with it. Jeff, how do we handle those pockets? How do we design affordable housing for those areas so we have control rather than somebody else? Flmnakes: I think the first thing to do is ask the comnmnity to define what the philosophy and the intent, the objective is. And that may be defined for us in St. Paul I'm not sure we know. I use here the term over and over again, affordable housing, both from the applicants, staff and ourselves. It's a catch word. When we hear this and we talk about densities, so many of the times we're looking at apm'Unent buildings here that are a quarter of a million dollars. 1ust because it happens to be high density and aparummt buildings doesn't mean it's affordable housing and just because it says it's affordable housing or the lowest affordable housing, let's say Mission Hills. $80,000.00, $70,000.00 units. A few years back a New Horizon home, the four plexes were the same prices. It basically, as I understand, you can't build anything with 2 bedrooms that's standing in modem code requirements for less than 70 72 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 grand. So if we're going to, the motivation for this is for assembly type work out here. They're talking about the intent is some of the owners of these companies would like to have thc people who work in their companies live out hem so they didn't have the ~tion problems and they have access to lower cost labor. I don't know if that's a pristin~ objcctivc and if you're dealing with some of thc philosophical issues of this city with no boundaries and so on, the intent that you have a ciasdess society and that you have say for instance on the Song development over there. The Song property. You have thc million dollar house and then you have the $40,000.00 next to it. From a practical standpoint does that ~ Is that going to happen. Do we specify on the Song development, hey. You can have $20 million houses here and then 3% of them have to this affo~lable,. Subsidized type. Or Lundgren development. I don't think the finances of those type of developnm~ts wozk that way. What I see as the type of PUD thing that we have corning in that are 40% -50%. Somewhere in there is a subsidized. Substandard amount. And_ then we q,,Rli~ it as that's affordable so we're being good. But I don't think that those numbers transhte into what's considered very low income housing in Minne~l~].is or what ~'s using as cri~ So it's not something where I can sit here and say, this is our objective. I think the concern is to have our community come forward and say, thi, is what the majority of us feel that we would ~ to proceed in zoning this is,sue and achieving the, so goals. ~er they are. And maybe the State govermnent 8upzrsedes municipal govemment so... Conrad: What do you think we should do? Should we fro'ward on at some point in time a recordation to the City Council that they form a task force? Farmakes: I believe the City staff has becn working on _this issue off and on in regm-d~ with some of the employers. Mancino: And there's a report being created. Conrad: Oh, okay. Scott: So the purpose for the affordable housing is to supply workers for industry and this housing will be subsidiz_e~ by the general public? So it's in the interest of the employers. Well Serf and I had this discussion last week. You know who benefits? Obviously the residents, the new residents benefit. Mancino: TIF districts. Scott: Well yeah, anyway. So our direction on this is. Aanenson: I get an idea of what you want in the PUD and I can go through that and modify 73 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 the concept to make sure we've got conditions in there that we want... Scorn And in PuD, when they talk about natural features and so forth, I really ~ what you did on Highway $. This, not this. I me~_n that's v~ry, very ~irr~.le. But that will cut through a lot of the stuff that you guys have to deal with if the ordimmce is mote specific. Aanenson: Let me just talk about a couple of things I had on here. Administrative approvals. As you recall when we approved the expansion to the hotel, we went thwugh the facade that went over that part of the Frontier Building...they're having it signed but they a...si~s. We've been really quick to...and we just approved the sign package for the Prontier Building as a generaL.We are policing the facade so we can get the new signs up there. So just to let you know, we did approve. .. similar that match~ the whole Pronfier Building and it will tie into what we have there. Also just for your information, May 18th the City Coun~ will be holding a workshop before your Planning Commi~aion meeting. They'll be 811uting at 5:30. If you're frusUal~ about Highway 5, you can iws~ne my frnsuafiom I did get the Council to move forward on it and we do have, I did get a hold of Bill Mozrish and he will be speaking for a few minutes. Trying to light a fire. I'll spend a little bit of time talking about what the Task Force did and what the Planning Commission has done and then Bant Warner, the consultant is going to lake as much time as they need to get through the whole document. We want to get it adopted. There's the. overlay zone. That's one portion but in the implementation section, there's a lot of work for other people to do. The HRA needs to get going on the gateway Ireatments. I ~ there's a lot of things that need to happen as a part of this document and the work task for everybody to make all this come to fruition and I hope we can get the Council excited about... And also just an order of business. You've been asking to see landscaping plans back but what I'd like to do h...just a landscaping issue. One will be back is the Minrtewashta landings will be back on because they want to be on the next Council so what I'd like to do, because these should be pretty straight forward. I mean we're specifically looking at landscaping, is that I will be putting those on first because I haven't noticed those. Is this an opportunity for you to look at so we get those people in and out of here and that way...and when the church one comes back. I did step out in the hall and we talked about, if they can't work out the benn, come back and talk about what we can do as an altemate...we'll put those people on at the be~nning so yOU don't have to, even though it's old business. And one other comment, next week is a huge agenda. I've done my best to try to knock people off and I think what we're probably going to have to do, you do want to put the sign ordinance back on, we've pretty much made all the revisions. We've got some great slides. Talking about some of the issues that you did and that's ~ Another critical ordinance that we have in place. UnfortLlnately those things get ~ to the end and everybody's tired. You've been beat up a little bit and I don't know how to accommodate that but you do have a lot that needs action. 74 Plnnning Commission Meeting - Mny 4, 1~4 Mancino: Can we throw some people off and do the sign ordinance? Aancnson: I'd like to. Mancino: Because that's as impommt as Highway $. F~: Can we do another work session7 Come_ in early. Scott: I know the Chamber of Conunerce was very active on that. Aanenson: Right, and when we get this revision we'll get that over to them too. The problem is that on the 18th is that we do have the Highway 5 and I want to let you know, in case any of you wanted to come and lislen...or just ref~e~ your memory. I'd like to have a work session on thac Maybe I'll give you a call loc and show you what's on and ff we want to talk about it. A couple of them, we have the sign for Abra-Goodyear. We tabled thiv.. I'm not sure ff they're going to be able to get it back on. We've got a couple Mission Hills. A big PUD. Preliminary. A big complex plan. Mancino: I thought we already approved that. Annenson: That was concept. Now it's preliminary...what we do with the extension of TH 101. Where we nre with that so we've got a meeting with Fred and nmybe there's some issues there that's just not qufle ready. We don't have enough knowledge in having TH 101 go forward. We are kind of in peak development so the next agendas are going to be~..but thcrc's just sonic staff stuff we want to ~ care of too. Some ordinance ~ Fm'mnk~: I have a quick procedural question. The City Council, especially Mr. Mason was ~ perplexed when this issue that we just discussed on the Press cnme up, as to why it was split or why we split it or why we came forward and approved the Press site and not the conditional use. He expressed that it's highly unusual, da, da, da and we had some confitsion here dealing with this as it-was really one approval but it wasn't one approval. It was three approvals and admittod that it took us quite a while to figure out how to appwve that thing. Is it their option to bring that forward as three proposals or one proposal or one proposal with two subsections or? Aanenson: Sure. You can handle them separately. I mean what we've always done is give the applicant. If he wants to keep it as one in the next arena and say you know, I want to see them both together but certainly they can both fly on their own merits. The Press can act independently of Kindercare if it wants to. 75 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 Pannakes: Why then would we group them together? That it's all or nothing. Aanenson: 'lt~'s someth/ng we talked about. We looked at Abra Goodyear together. We 'can certainly I~o with one applicant and...it's the sam~ thing with the PUD when you're looking at industrial residential. You've got 3 applicants on that. Fannakes: In that case then, I don't ~inl~ we should be proactive. I mean that's my opinion. We should just approve or deny it like they requested it at City Hall and Council And I didn't see a problem with the Press, but hey. If that's what they want, that's their time. Aanenson: Well it's not going forward because technically again you haven't had the 60 days so the only thing that's going forward is the Press and the subdivision. Farmakes: Right, but we spent a fair amount of time on that and really clouded the issue of approving the Press expansion. So I mean it may be constructive in pmv/dlng informs~on as to why we didn't approve it or why we did approve it. But it kind of, to me I saw a Council that was confused when. Mancino: Very confused. Nm'makes: As to why it was coming up to them with this approval. Aanenson: I'm assuming that the Kin~ is on your next agenda and Dave's going to look at the traf~ things. You still have an opportunity to forward that ~on. That's my understanding. Scott: Well I think there was a miss, I haven't talked to Mike Mason about this but it appeared when I was there that they were confused. Some of the Council members thought that we had something that we weren't supposed to when it was very clear Roger did a very nice job of saying, it doesn't say you can. It doesn't say you can't. So that was a moot point. So that was rather interesting. Aanenson: Yeah, normally just out of courtesy if the applicant wants to keep them both together, we keep them both together. He wanted those both considered together and they Fannakes: It was clear to me that Mi~ considered that to be some procedunfl tactic on approval or denial and it had nothing to do with that. Scott: No, and he also made a comment that, to the effect, and for those of you who were 76 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 also there, this is what I thought. Is that there was somehow something personal about, remember when he, he was very, I mean he was very concerned and was a bit ~ that we had done this and then he had made the comment that he had hoped that the reason why we were doinl~ that was noth~nl~ personal against the npp~t and I just kind of sat back. Plus the fact, they didn't ask, we were sitting right there. There were four of us. The City Council didn't ask. They naked to talk to the developer. But now I suppo~ we could have raised our hand and could have gotten up but they did not ask for any input from us. Perha~ they didn't want any but so I mean it was a rather interesting thing. I'm gJad we were able to go there. The four of us were able to be there. Fnrmnkes: It's the first time that it's happened that I know, ,ince I've been here, and l_add's been here a lot longer. I haven't encountered that before where it was split up and approved thc one and then somehow it was considered to be highly kregulnr. Conrad: I think it makes sense. Iwasn'tthere. I didn't vote on it but I think it ~ ~ Mandno: I just don't think the developer liked it so the developer didn't like it and got to City Council. Conrad: Theoretically when you have some common driveways and stuff, years ago things came in split nmi wait a second. You say, staff. Why did you split these up. We don't understand. Show them all together because they've got shared... So now it isn't to our benefit to see things coming in together and you see how they relate. You see how the traf~ relates so it's real valid. 1 love to have it come in together but I also think it's real valid. I think the whole thing could have been tabled for the problem. The developer chose to bring it together. It was our prerogative. It was your ~gative to table the whole thing. You were being kind to send the Press through. They don't want it. That's really what you were doing. Hey, let's show some good will Let's get the Press going. Mnncino: But the City Council didn't see that and secondly, not only did they not see that, but the only reason that they didn't deal with it was procedurnL It wns not in respect for what the Planning Commission had done, which was even worse. And I don't know why. Farmakes: It was pacelved I think, because there were several comments made about timing. Timing and delaying. That somehow this was being pigeon holed or delayed to achieve rome purpose and for the life of me I can't irna~ne what. I mean that wasn't the situation at all In fact I believe we asked the applicant in the discussion process, how to address the issue 77 Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 and when he stood up at City Council and said that we asimd them to approve or deny. We didn't want this at all I don't remember them coming forward and saying, please don't do Scott: Well, and then there's also the comment too of, well if we don't get, if you guys don't approve this by such and such a date, well geez we're not going to be able to build this and then fall's coming up. It's like their time line, you know anybody can sit down and talin a look at what the time line is and if you're prudent and you're representing your landowners, etc, etc, you're going to go well, worst case scenario is it's going to tak~ us this many months to get this thing going. $o worst case scemuio, do we want to push it for this year or are we looldng for next year. So I get pretty in'itated when it's kind of like, well this is our time frame and you better follow it because we've got a building to build. Give me a break. Conrad: But as long as we have valid reasons for delaying something, that's just. hey there's no problem. Staff has an obligation to get things to us and we have an obligation to do a good job. Period. And I think we can be turning things. Yeah we could have turned the Prea~s down. I think one fiat s~t saying, hey. How you make au i .rnp~t on the City Council. I'm not sure we do it when we have 30 pages of notes. Seriously. I think the motion, how do they get a consensus out of 30 pages. Jeff talks-and they know where Jeff's at. And Nancy's talks and she's different. So what's the consensus of opinion. I think when you make one flat s~t. one motion saying we turned this down for these three reasons, that is more of a, and if it's a 6 to nothing or 7, 6 to 1 vote on it, that's a real flat ~t so it's a simple way to cxmae to a conclusion. I don't know how the City Council really understands where we're at because we do change during the course of a discussion. You know somebody could be very vehemently against something but votes for it. If you look at our Minutes you know so how do they know. How hnpormnt was that issue that you were vehemently against because all of a sudden you voted for the whole thing? But I'm not sure we're, I don't know. hupact wise, that's what, you've really got to send clear signals to the C~ Council and I'm not. I've never been convinced that our Minutes do a good job. I think when we're in attendance they get a good feel They get a good feel for where we are and I think our motions typically work well when they really show a unanimous perspective of something and turn downs work a great deal You know you can strugg/e to make a positive statement but you can make, you know we approve this with these 48 exceptions. Well, you can really make it a lot easier if you turn it down because the developer gets it. The developer doesn't want it turned down. Farmakes: It didn't work with Market. It didn't work with Charlie's property. Conrad: Yeah, you're right. 78 Planning Commission Meeting- May 4, 19o,14 Scott: Well there's I think two ways to do that. One is the role of the Chairperson that after a motion is passed to be able to say, okay so basically what we're, the message we're _sending to the City Council is dot, dot, dot, dot. And_ then the person who is ~__t~_ fling the City Council meethl8 gets up at the appropriate time dm'in8 the public hearing and just says, this is the reason why we did what we did and in your minutes on page such and such. If I can just point this out to you... And so it's partially the role of the Chairperson and then the wle of the person who is at the, who goes to the Council meeting. Farmakes: ...got important issue that that person that's representing won't mind doing that, that that would be helpful Or even in some cases maybe we should send a letter forward to the elected people so ff we feel it's an important issue, sometimes looking at 20 pages of dialogue. Aanenson: We always try to do a Planning ~ission update and I think Joe's on the right track. If there's something, we always try to raise issues that were maybe addressed... specific. Or sorn~§ that was a hot button for you but I think you're on the fight track. We do a Planning Commission utxiate and then we revise the conditions or put thc additional conditions that you've done so they can clearly see what was added by you. But I think your recommendation Joe is ~ good. If you wanted to at the end make sure that we put in that update specific points because we put that right before they see the recommendation. Planning Commission update. On this date they heard and these seemod to be the big issues and we've added/5 more conditions. But if you want to do something like that so they see it Scott: Yeah, well I get their packet and you know we're one of several core--ns that t~ have to deal with so I mean, everybody wants to quick read and I think that's something that we nccd to do for them so they can get our intent in a very short l~xiod of time. Aanenson: Right the Minutes, they're verbatim. Mancino: But it would be helpful for the Planning Commi~ionel' who's going to that City Council meeting, to get the packet and look through it and say you know, to get up and to give a short summary of what we dedded at the meeting from the Minutes. Scott: Now that we've beaten that to death. Can I have a motion to adjourn? Mancino moved, Scott seconded to adjourn the nmeti~ All voted in hvor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson 79 Planning Commission Meeting - Mny 4, 1994 Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 80